MPs have rejected a proposed ban on social media for under-16s despite earlier backing from peers and campaigners including actor Hugh Grant.
The age limit, modelled on an Australian-style ban, was supported by those who argued parents face an "impossible position" regarding online harms affecting their children.
However, critics such as the NSPCC warned that such a ban could instead drive teenagers into unregulated corners of the internet.
The amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, introduced by Conservative former minister Lord Nash, was defeated by 307 votes to 173, a majority of 134.
However, a ban could still come in future after the Commons supported a Government bid to give additional powers to the Secretary of State.
Under the amendment in lieu, Science Secretary Liz Kendall could “restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chat bots”.
She could also limit children’s VPN use, restrict access to addictive features, and change the age of digital consent in the UK, education minister Olivia Bailey told MPs.
As MPs considered the changes proposed by the upper chamber, Ms Bailey said: “Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s.
“Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online.
“That is why, last week, the Government launched a consultation to seek views to help shape our next steps and ensure children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world.”
The consultation will look at whether social media platforms should come with a minimum age requirement and whether platforms should switch off addictive features such as autoplay.
Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington John McDonnell rebelled against the Government on Monday, voting in favour of the Lords amendment.
Meanwhile, 107 Labour MPs abstained, including North Somerset’s Sadik Al-Hassan.
Mr Al-Hassan had earlier said: “Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked.
“As a pharmacist, I know if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78%, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind a counter with strict controls on who could access it.
“We would act, because that is what the evidence demanded. The same logic must apply here.
“We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm, and we have the power to act.”
Read MoreVoice actor from Halo video game tells Trump team to cut him from Iran strike video
No-one showed for 9-year-old’s birthday at Pizza Hut - until her local town found out
Victims of rape to get free legal advice throughout criminal justice process
King tells cricket legend that playing the sport in the Caribbean ‘nearly killed’ him
Anti-Muslim hate definition will protect against unacceptable abuse, says Reed
