Over 80% of Australian Children Under 16 Continue to Use Social Media Despite Legislative Ban
Four in five under 16s in Australia – Australia’s recent initiative to restrict social media access for children under 16 has not significantly curbed their usage, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of Newcastle observed that nearly 85% of teenagers in this age group remained active on platforms like TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat even three months after the law took effect. The findings suggest that while the legislation aimed to limit exposure to digital platforms, its impact on adolescent behavior has been minimal, raising questions about its effectiveness in protecting younger users from online risks.
First Country to Implement Social Media Age Restriction
Australia became the first nation to introduce a legal framework banning under-16s from using social media. Effective December 2025, the law prohibits children below 16 from creating accounts on major platforms, including TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat. However, the University of Newcastle study, published in the *BMJ*, reveals that the policy has not yet achieved its intended outcomes. The research highlights how many teenagers continue to access these platforms despite the restrictions, often through creative workarounds.
Among the 408 participants aged 12 to 17, the study found that compliance with the ban was inconsistent. Over 80% reported using social media regularly, with more than half maintaining their own accounts. This suggests that the legislation has not fully deterred access, particularly among older children who may be more tech-savvy. The researchers also noted that the implementation of age verification processes was often weak, allowing many minors to bypass the rules without difficulty.
Challenges in Enforcing the Ban
The study emphasizes that inadequate age verification checks have played a critical role in teenagers’ continued use of banned platforms. Only 5% of 12- to 13-year-olds and 11% of 14- to 15-year-olds in the sample had to upload official ID to confirm their age. Instead, most relied on simpler methods such as stating their age or providing a selfie. These findings indicate that the current system is not robust enough to prevent younger users from circumventing the ban.
Furthermore, a significant portion of participants admitted to actively evading the restrictions. Approximately 15% of the 12- to 13-year-olds and 19% of the 14- to 15-year-olds surveyed used fake accounts to access platforms. Around 3% of the group also employed virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass age checks. These tactics highlight the adaptability of teenagers in accessing social media, despite the legal barriers in place.
Implications for Global Policy
The Australian study has sparked discussions about the effectiveness of similar bans in other countries. The UK, for instance, is planning to introduce a social media ban for children under 16, set to begin in 2027. This initiative would block access to platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, X, and Facebook, while also restricting livestreaming and communication with strangers on gaming sites like Roblox. However, experts argue that the Australian experience demonstrates that a ban alone may not be sufficient to address the broader issue of online harm.
Andy Burrows, CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation in the UK, warned that without a comprehensive strategy, the proposed ban could face similar challenges. “Unless ministers have a coherent plan to urgently learn lessons, the UK’s ban will similarly unravel,” he stated. Burrows added that parents might be left with a false sense of security, believing their children are protected when the restrictions are not fully enforced. He called for a more robust approach that ensures children are shielded from harmful content, rather than relying solely on a performative ban.
“A ban should not be seen as a silver bullet. We have to go further so that all online services – not just social media platforms – that use harmful features and functionalities should be banned from access to all children, not just those under 16.”
Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, echoed this sentiment. She pointed out that the current focus on social media platforms overlooks other online services that pose risks to young users. “The next prime minister must enter Downing Street with a convincing strategy that properly protects children from online harm,” she said. “Otherwise, the ban will fail to improve our teens’ mental health and wellbeing.”
Prof Dennis Ougrin, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Queen Mary University of London, acknowledged the study’s importance but cautioned against premature conclusions. “The key question is not simply whether use falls, but whether restrictions improve outcomes such as mental health, sleep, exposure to harmful content, and self-harm,” he noted. Ougrin suggested that while the Australian model has limitations, it provides valuable insights for policymakers worldwide.
Despite the study’s findings, the UK government remains confident in its approach. A spokesperson stated that the planned ban would incorporate stronger age verification measures, making it harder for children to bypass the rules. “This ban is as much about helping future generations and resetting social norms in future as it is about immediate compliance,” the statement added. However, the success of this policy will depend on how effectively these checks are implemented and enforced.
Broader Implications for Digital Regulation
The research underscores the complexity of regulating digital platforms for young users. While the ban aims to reduce screen time and exposure to harmful content, it has not yet achieved significant compliance. This raises concerns about the feasibility of such policies in other countries. For instance, the UK’s plan to ban under-16s from major platforms is a step forward, but it may not address the full spectrum of online risks. Experts stress that a more integrated strategy, combining age verification, parental oversight, and platform accountability, is necessary to create meaningful change.
Parents and educators have also expressed mixed reactions to the ban. Some welcome the effort to limit access, while others argue that it may not address the root causes of online harm. The study’s authors suggest that the policy could be more effective for younger children, such as those under eight, who are less likely to bypass restrictions. However, for adolescents, who are already accustomed to using digital platforms, the law’s impact remains limited.
As countries around the world consider similar measures, the Australian case serves as both a cautionary tale and a benchmark for future policies. The research highlights the need for innovation in digital regulation, emphasizing that simply banning platforms is not enough. Instead, a multifaceted approach that includes education, technological safeguards, and ongoing monitoring is essential to ensure that children are truly protected from the negative effects of social media.
With the UK poised to implement its own ban in 2027, the findings from Australia offer critical insights. They suggest that while legislation can set the stage for change, its success hinges on the ability to enforce age restrictions effectively. As policymakers move forward, the challenge will be to create a system that not only limits access but also promotes healthier digital habits among children and adolescents.
The study’s authors conclude that Australia’s social media minimum age legislation may serve as a starting point rather than a complete solution. While it has not yet produced substantial effects on under-16s, it could be a useful framework for addressing the needs of younger children. For now, the data shows that adolescents continue to find ways around the ban, indicating that the fight against online harm requires more than just legal boundaries—it demands a cultural and technological shift in how children engage with digital platforms.
