Australia’s Social Media Ban: Can Age Restrictions Actually Protect Children?

On December 10, 2025, Australia crossed a significant regulatory threshold. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 prohibited children under 16 from creating accounts on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and other age-restricted services.¹ As the first nation to implement such a stringent and universal age floor—rejecting even parental consent as an exemption—Australia made global headlines. The legislation places the burden of compliance entirely on the platforms, which face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars for failing to enforce these boundaries.

What does the law mandate, and what does it omit?

The law requires social media providers to take "reasonable steps" to prevent Australian children under the age of 16 from maintaining accounts.¹ This mandate applies to Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, X, Threads, Twitch, Kick, and YouTube, while messaging apps and sites that do not require an account remain exempt. A critical loophole remains in the legislation: it does not prevent a child from accessing these platforms without logging in. Furthermore, the use of VPNs is not prohibited, and the expectation is that platforms must independently develop technologies to detect and block such circumvention attempts. Because there are no penalties for parents or children, the entire legal weight rests on the platforms' ability—and willingness—to enforce these checks.

What were the results after the first three months?

The Australian eSafety Commissioner assessed the impact by surveying 803 children aged 10 to 15 and their parents, both immediately before the act took effect and three months later.² This serves as the first snapshot of a planned two-year study. The proportion of children holding at least one account on a restricted platform fell from 52.4 percent to 42.1 percent. However, the number of children who still engage with at least one restricted platform fell only from 85.9 percent to 81.5 percent. This four-point difference suggests that losing an official account does not automatically stop a child from accessing the content.

Why are the current restrictions failing to stop usage?

The primary reason cited in the report is that platforms are not taking age verification seriously. According to the survey, more than half of the children reported that their age was never verified. Approximately 37.1 percent stated they simply registered their age as 16 or older, while 18.2 percent reported that the platform's verification system erroneously approved their access despite their true age.²

Additional observational data published in The BMJ confirms that most adolescents continue to use social media after the law's implementation, often using their existing accounts.³ Common circumvention methods include creating fake accounts, utilizing private browsing modes, and manually entering incorrect birth dates. While usage among 14- to 15-year-olds showed a minor decline, it did not reach a level of statistical significance. Furthermore, some children have migrated to platforms less frequently targeted, such as Reddit or Pinterest. A secondary, unintended consequence is that parents are increasingly unaware of their children's online activity, as children are more likely to hide their digital habits once accounts are officially restricted.

What lessons can be learned from international precedents?

The BMJ article notes that while similar age-verification mandates for pornography sites in the United Kingdom reduced access by 30 to 50 percent, the same success has not been replicated in social media.³ This is likely because social networks are woven into the fabric of daily adolescent communication, resulting in higher dependency levels than those associated with adult entertainment sites. The Australian government is currently debating increasing penalties for non-compliant platforms and granting the eSafety Commissioner broader oversight powers.

For policymakers globally, the evidence suggests that an age limit is not a standalone protective solution. Effective policy requires a combination of platform accountability, improved digital literacy, and fostering open communication between parents and children. As Australia continues its two-year monitoring program, the initial results confirm that the gap between legislative intent and digital reality remains significant.

Notes and Sources

1. Parliament of Australia (2024). Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. Passed November 29, 2024; bans children under 16 from opening accounts on restricted platforms. Effective: December 10, 2025. Non-compliance penalty up to 49.5 million AUD; no penalties for minors or parents. ↩
2. eSafety Commissioner (2026). Social media age restrictions: Three-month evaluation report. Survey of 803 children (10-15) and parents; account ownership 52.4% → 42.1%; general usage 85.9% → 81.5%. Primary failure factor: Ineffective platform age verification. ↩
3. Assessing early effects of Australia's Social Media Minimum Age Act on adolescents' social media use (2026). The BMJ, 393, bmj-2026-363695. Observational study of 408 adolescents; found no significant decline in use among those under 16, citing common circumvention methods. ↩