Should capacity to use the internet and social media be treated as a safeguarding issue?

The internet has transformed modern life drastically and plays an important role in communication and access to information. Yet for vulnerable adults, social media and online platforms can create significant safeguarding risks. 

The Court of Protection is increasingly being asked to make best interests decisions around whether a person should have the ability to: 

• access the internet 
• engage in social media  
• engage in online relationships  
• share images or personal information online 
• be exposure to harmful or illegal content online 

These issues require consideration of mental capacity law and guidance, whilst balancing the rights to privacy and autonomy with safeguarding risks. Online exploitation can be particularly prevalent for the most vulnerable in society. 

As Court of Protection specialists Holly Miéville-Hawkins and Sophia Withers discussed, the courts now recognise internet and social media use as a distinct area of decision-making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with its own legal framework and safeguarding considerations. 

Capacity to use the internet is a separate legal decision

One of the most important developments in this area came from the cases of Re A (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use: Best Interests) decided alongside Re B (Capacity: Social Media: Care and Contact). 

The court made clear that capacity to use social media and the internet is a separate issue from capacity for contact with others. This distinction matters, because online activity creates unique risks that extend beyond ordinary social interaction. 

As a result of these cases, the court developed a separate set of “relevant information” a person must understand when deciding whether they should have the ability to use the internet and social media, and whether this can be done safely. 

What information must a person understand about internet use?

The court identified several key risks and concepts a person must be able to understand, retain, and weigh. 

Relevant information for internet and social media capacity

Importantly, the courts deliberately adopted accessible language. 

For example, the phrase: “extremely rude or offensive images” was used to help vulnerable individuals understand that certain online behaviour could lead to police involvement or criminal consequences. 

The courts have emphasised that the legal threshold should not become unrealistically high, recognising the central role the internet now plays in everyday life. 

Why internet capacity is becoming a major safeguarding issue

For families and professionals involved in safeguarding concerns for vulnerable adults, this is becoming an increasingly important aspect of mental capacity and Court of Protection law.  

As Holly Miéville-Hawkins observed during the interview, internet use is increasingly one of the most significant safeguarding issues facing local authorities, deputies, families and other professionals. Online harm can occur extremely quickly and can escalate rapidly. It can become difficult to reverse once information has been shared publicly. Risks may emerge within minutes through contact with predatory individuals  

• online grooming  
• financial scams  
• sharing intimate images  
• accessing harmful material  
• social media manipulation  
• viral content distribution  

How the court balances safeguarding with autonomy

The Court of Protection faces a difficult balancing exercise in internet-related cases. 

On one hand: 

The internet may be essential for: 

• communication  
• friendships  
• education  
• entertainment  
• independence  
• private life  

On the other: 

There may be serious risks involving: 

• exploitation  
• abuse  
• criminal offending  
• emotional harm  
• financial harm  
• sexual exploitation  

The courts are cautious about imposing overly restrictive measures, as internet restrictions can significantly interfere with autonomy ang dignity. As Sophia Withers explained, even measures such as parental controls or device monitoring can become highly intrusive and restrictive. 

Cases involving digital restrictions may overlap with broader health and welfare authorisation issues, particularly where supervision becomes intensive. 

The growing challenge of online exploitation

The interview highlighted how rapidly evolving technology is making safeguarding increasingly difficult. 

Modern online risks now include: 

• AI-generated images and identities, including deepfakes and filters  
• romance scams and coercive online relationships 
• financial manipulation  
• extremist content  
• cyberbullying  
• grooming 
• harmful sexual material  

Sophia Withers noted that online deception is becoming harder to identify, particularly where individuals use technology to disguise their identity or intentions. 

This creates particular risks for vulnerable adults who may struggle to: 

• assess authenticity  
• identify manipulation  
• recognise exploitation  
• understand permanence online  

The case of Re AA and evolving internet capacity

The interview also referenced the more recent case of AA, Re (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use) [2021] EWCOP 70, involving concerns about high-risk online behaviour linked to auto-erotic asphyxiation. 

The case illustrated an important principle: 

Capacity can improve through support, education, and increased understanding. 

Over time, the individual developed a better appreciation of online risks, personal safety and harmful behaviour. As a result, the court concluded that he had gained capacity regarding internet use, and intrusive daily monitoring of his devices was no longer proportionate.  

This demonstrates the Court of Protection’s continuing emphasis on: 

• proportionality  
• least restrictive intervention  
• supporting autonomy wherever possible  

What most people do not realise about internet capacity cases

Many people assume safeguarding concerns automatically justify restricting internet access. 

In reality, the legal position is much more nuanced. 

The courts recognise that: 

• internet access is central to modern life  
• restrictions can become deeply intrusive  
• digital exclusion can increase isolation  
• vulnerable adults still retain autonomy rights  

This means professionals must carefully justify any restrictions imposed. 

Common safeguarding concerns involving internet use

Professionals commonly encounter the modern risks mentioned above. These concerns are increasingly appearing in Court of Protection proceedings involving vulnerable adults. 

In some situations, there may also be overlap with concerns about financial abuse and predatory marriages, particularly where online relationships involve manipulation or exploitation. 

Common mistakes professionals and families make

Treating internet access as a luxury

The courts recognise internet use as an important aspect of autonomy and private life. 

Over-restricting online access

Restrictions must remain proportionate and evidence-based. 

Failing to provide education and support

The Mental Capacity Act requires practical steps to help individuals make decisions safely. 

Ignoring rapidly changing technology

Safeguarding approaches can quickly become outdated. 

When professional advice is essential

Specialist legal advice is often necessary where: 

• online safeguarding concerns arise  
• restrictive internet controls are proposed  
• capacity assessments are disputed  
• vulnerable adults are subject to online exploitation  
• local authorities seek court intervention  
• digital monitoring raises privacy concerns  

These cases often involve complex interactions between: 

• mental capacity law  
• safeguarding  
• privacy rights  
• technology  
• human rights  
• deprivation of liberty considerations  

In contested matters, specialist litigation support and expert witness services may assist with capacity evidence, safeguarding analysis, and digital risk assessments. 

FAQ

Is capacity to use social media a separate legal test? 

Yes. The Court of Protection recognises internet and social media use as distinct decisions requiring separate assessment. 

What risks must a person understand online? 

They must understand risks such as exploitation, deception, sharing personal information, and potential legal consequences. 

Can the Court of Protection restrict internet access? 

Yes, but restrictions must remain proportionate and necessary. 

Why is online safeguarding difficult? 

Online harm can occur very quickly, and technology evolves faster than many safeguarding frameworks. 

Can someone regain capacity to access the internet? 

Yes. Courts recognise that education and support may improve understanding and decision-making ability over time. 

Conclusion 

Capacity to use the internet and social media is rapidly becoming one of the most important safeguarding issues in modern Court of Protection practice. The courts now recognise that online activity creates unique risks involving exploitation and abuse. At the same time, internet access remains fundamental to modern autonomy, communication, and personal freedom. 

As technology continues to evolve, the challenge for professionals, families, and the courts will be maintaining the delicate balance between: 

• safeguarding vulnerable adults  
• respecting privacy and autonomy  
• avoiding overly restrictive interventions  

This area of law is still developing and is likely to become increasingly significant in future Court of Protection cases.