Our What’s NEXT in Marketing 2026 Conference Series returns to the Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia—and for the first time in Thailand! Brace yourself for bold ideas driving the next marketing wave. Click here to learn more!
Filipino teenagers could soon lose access to the platforms where many brands reach them. The Senate has approved on third reading a bill that would bar children below 18 from registering for or using accounts on age-restricted social media platforms. That bill is Senate Bill 2424, the SMART Kids Act.
The House has taken a softer line. Its HB 11566, the SAFE KIDS Act, would prohibit children below 13 from holding accounts and allow restricted access for those aged 13 to under 18. The two chambers must reconcile the age thresholds in a bicameral conference before a final bill reaches the President.
Earlier proposals centred on a minimum age of 16. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian’s Social Media Safety for Children Act (Senate Bill 2066) would have barred children below 16. Senators backed urgent consideration of that bill after a school shooting in Zamboanga. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has said a blanket ban could push children to hide their online activities, leaving them more vulnerable to grooming and abuse.
The Philippines would not be the first in the region. Australia’s under-16 ban took effect in December 2025, obliging ten major platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, to keep children from creating accounts. Indonesia began deactivating under-16 accounts from March 28. Malaysia’s rules requiring platforms to verify ages and block under-16 registrations took effect on June 1. Enforcement is still unsettled. Australia’s online safety watchdog found that a substantial proportion of Australian children were still using banned platforms three months in.
For marketers, the question is what happens to a youth audience built largely on social.
Protecting minors is the right goal, but the “how” is contested
All three leaders back the intent. They differ on whether restriction alone can deliver it.
Gab Abeleda, Regional Associate Director (Philippines) at Ellerton & Co. Public Relations, said protecting minors from harmful content is the right goal, but the implementation needs close study.
“In theory, it’s simple: restrict access and reduce exposure,” he said. “In practice, social platforms thrive on audiences, algorithms, and anonymity, which makes age restrictions hard to enforce and easy to work around.”
He argued that policy has to keep pace with technology and be paired with wide-scale efforts to promote responsible internet use among minors.
Chescka Diaz Uy, a seasoned PR professional, shared that view. She said restricting access cannot carry the entire responsibility for keeping children safe. Platform accountability, digital literacy, guidance for families and responsible marketing all need to be part of the effort. She also said the industry carries its own share of responsibility.
“Our industry has the power to shape perceptions, aspirations and behavior, especially among younger audiences,” she said, adding that this influence “comes with a huge responsibility.”
Meanwhile, Gian Angelo Dela Cruz, Deputy General Manager and Head of Strategy and Brand Experience at HAVAS Ortega, said governments worldwide are increasingly worried about cyberbullying, harmful content, online exploitation and the effect of social media on young people’s mental wellbeing. For him, the debate is no longer about whether there is a problem.
“The debate isn’t about whether there is a problem, but whether an outright restriction is the right answer,” he said. He noted that the Philippines still tops global social media usage rankings. For many young Filipinos, he said, these platforms have become spaces for learning, entrepreneurship, advocacy and family connection.
Brands will have to meet young people elsewhere
Dela Cruz expects direct engagement to get harder. Brands have leaned heavily on TikTok, Instagram and creator ecosystems to speak to younger audiences. If access tightens and age verification becomes stricter, he said, those channels may become less desirable for users and less effective for brands.
“I don’t think brands will lose consumers entirely,” he added, but brands will need to build experiences and communities that go beyond social.
Diaz Uy agreed there would be an adjustment, especially for brands that rely on social for discovery, creator partnerships and direct engagement. She pointed to the creativity of Filipino marketers and said the shift could push brands to revisit how they build relationships with young people. That could mean relevant experiences, retail, sports, arts and community activities, with appropriate safeguards and permissions.
From a PR perspective, she said, the change reinforces the value of earning trust over time, because young people form opinions through their own experiences with a brand, conversations with people they trust and what they see the brand doing in their communities.
Abeleda made the same point. “Brands need to understand their audience hasn’t disappeared,” he said. Their experiences outside social media should be magnified. He listed schools, retail, community spaces, family and offline moments as places brands will need to meet young people.
Brands that own those touchpoints will have the advantage, he said, and the rest should start building them now.
Parents become a bigger audience, but not a replacement for teens
The leaders agree parents will matter more, but they differ on how much.
Dela Cruz was the most emphatic. “Absolutely,” he said, when asked whether parents become the new gatekeepers. If the law is implemented, he expects it to elevate the role of parents in shaping youth consumption and desire for brands.
He framed the task as serving three audiences at once: teens, who seek relevance and self-expression; parents, who seek trust, safety and value; and the offline communities around them. The most desirable brands, he said, will deliver cultural relevance to teenagers while giving parents confidence that the brand is a positive influence.
Abeleda said brands that build relationships with parents through messages on trust, safety and value will be better positioned. But he cautioned that the teen still influences the purchase, “so the message has to work for both.”
Diaz Uy was more measured. She said parents’ role could become more prominent, but she would not assume they will simply replace teenagers as the audience, since young people still have their own preferences and opinions. A teenager might be drawn to self-expression or a shared interest with friends, she said, while a parent may want clearer information on quality, suitability, safety and value for money. Both can sit in the same brand story, she said, as long as the claims are honest and supported by real experience.
She also drew a line on approach: parents “should never be treated as a workaround for restrictions.” The goal, she said, should be to help families make informed decisions without pressuring either the child or the parent.
Influencer marketing shifts toward older creators, family voices and trust
On influencers, the leaders see a shift in who brands work with and how they judge them.
Abeleda expects a move toward 18+ creators, parent and family creators, and brand-owned or community-led content. He named the categories most exposed as those built on teen voices: gaming, beauty and skincare, fashion, snacks and drinks, entertainment and edtech. His advice to influencer marketing teams was to review their creator rosters and diversify formats now, ahead of the pending shift.
Dela Cruz sees three shifts. Brands may tap young-adult creators aged 18 and above who still hold credibility among teenagers. Family and parent influencers could grow in importance because they resonate with both decision-makers and younger audiences. And influencer marketing may move away from pure reach and towards “trust, credibility and desire,” with brands looking for creators who can influence households and communities, not just individuals.
Diaz Uy cautioned against treating this as a simple swap. If the final law restricts teen creators’ use of covered platforms, brands would need to review existing partnerships and upcoming campaigns. They would also need to consider young creators whose work and income depend on these channels. Replacing a teen creator with an adult would not resolve every concern, she said. Brands would still need to know who actually watches that creator, whether the content suits that audience, and whether the campaign respects the purpose of the restrictions.
She hopes the change leads to more thoughtful creator selection. Beyond follower counts, she said, brands should ask why a person has their audience’s trust, what makes the partnership credible, and what the brand is contributing to the people it wants to reach. “Those questions should guide influencer marketing regardless of whether the legislation takes effect,” she said.
***
Whatever form the final law takes, the three leaders point to the same conclusion: the youth audience is not going away, but the routes to it are changing. Abeleda urges brands to start building offline touchpoints and to diversify their creator rosters now. Dela Cruz expects the most desirable brands to serve teens, parents and communities at once. Diaz Uy asks brands to earn trust through honest claims and credible partnerships rather than workarounds.
The bicameral conference still has to settle the age threshold and how the rules will be enforced, so the details may yet shift. The brands best placed to adapt, though, are likely to be those that treat trust, not reach, as the measure of how well they connect with young Filipinos.
© 2026 MARKETECH APAC. All rights reserved.
