Australia Banned Social Media for Kids Under 16 — Yet 85% Still Use It

The ban has been in place since December. It doesn't appear to be working yet.

Australia passed the Social Media Minimum Age Act 2024, prohibiting children under 16 from holding accounts on platforms including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. Three months after the law took effect, researchers from the University of Newcastle studied 408 young people aged 12 to 17 and found that more than 85% of those under 16 were still using social media.

Daily usage was "relatively stable." Kids were getting around the restrictions by creating fake accounts or using private browsers. The researchers found "insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the Act had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16 years."

That's a polite academic way of saying it hasn't changed much.

Study team member Dr. Courtney Barnes was careful not to call the policy a failure — just early. "The age restrictions have not yet substantially reduced adolescent social media use, or access to restricted platforms," she said. "However, it will take time for adequate implementation to occur. It is too early to determine whether the policy will be effective in the longer term."

The authors noted that benefits from major public policy changes often take time to show up — and suggested the full impact "may not be evident for a decade."

Why the Law Is Hard to Enforce

The core problem is technical. Social media platforms are required under the Australian law to take "reasonable steps" to prevent underage users from accessing their services — but the law stops short of mandating a specific verification method. Platforms have been testing age assurance systems including government ID checks and biometric age estimation, but none of these are foolproof, and determined teenagers have always found workarounds.

A fake account takes minutes to create. A VPN or private browser is free and widely known among teenagers. Australia's law puts the legal responsibility on platforms rather than kids or parents — which is the right approach in principle — but enforcement against global platforms operating outside Australian jurisdiction is genuinely complicated.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told reporters that bans are "no silver bullet" and that without strong enforcement "these policies risk becoming empty promises." Barnardo's, a British children's charity, put it plainly: "stronger, more effective age assurance is needed."

The UK Is About to Try the Same Thing

Australia's results aren't stopping other countries from following suit. The UK announced on June 15 that it is implementing its own social media ban for under-16s, with the law potentially taking effect by spring 2027. Former Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who announced his resignation from office on June 22 — had championed the move, saying parents were "crying out for change."

UK children's charity NSPCC was blunt about what Australia's early data means for Britain's plans. "It's evident from this research that a ban alone will not keep all children safe from harm online," said CEO Chris Sherwood, adding that the UK government "must learn lessons from Australia."

What the Research Actually Suggests Works Better

The experts weighing in on Australia's results aren't arguing that age restrictions are useless — they're arguing that restrictions alone aren't enough.

Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, a children and technology nonprofit, told reporters that "laws that require social media companies to design their platforms in ways that are safe and not addictive for kids are likely to be more effective" than access restrictions alone. That framing points toward a different regulatory approach — not just keeping kids off platforms, but requiring platforms to change how they work for young users regardless of how those users got on.

That distinction matters because it shifts the focus from the child's behavior to the platform's design. Features like infinite scroll, algorithmic amplification of emotionally intense content, and notification systems engineered to maximize time-on-app are arguably more responsible for the documented harms to adolescent mental health than access itself. A teenager who lies about their age to get on Instagram still encounters the same algorithmically optimized feed — the ban addresses the door, not what's behind it.

Australia's law may still prove meaningful over time as enforcement tightens and platforms invest more in verification technology. But three months in, with 85% of targeted kids still scrolling, the early evidence suggests that a ban without teeth is mostly a statement of intent.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.