Six months in, Australia’s social media ban is under fire. Is the world still following?
It was the law that made global headlines. Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for under-16s, passing the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 in November 2024 and bringing it into force on 10 December 2025. Dozens of nations watched closely, promising to follow suit.
Six months later, the results are in. And they are not pretty.
What the ban was supposed to do
The law was simple in concept: social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit had to take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australian children under 16 from holding accounts. Non-compliance meant fines of up to A$49.5 million (roughly US$34 million).
The goal was to protect adolescent mental health, reduce exposure to harmful content, and shift the burden of enforcement onto platforms rather than parents.
What actually happened
A peer-reviewed study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the University of Newcastle found that 85% of surveyed under-16 Australians were still using social media three months after the ban took effect. The researchers concluded there was “insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the act had any early substantial effects.”
The numbers tell the story:
- Two-thirds of teens encountered age verification checks, but only 5% of 12-13 year olds and 11% of 14-15 year olds were asked for official photo ID.
- The most common verification methods were self-reported age and uploading a selfie.
- 15% of 12-13 year olds and 19% of 14-15 year olds simply created fake accounts to bypass restrictions.
- Only about 3% used VPNs, suggesting most circumvention happened through the platforms’ own weak verification systems.
Separate data from the eSafety Commissioner in March 2026 found that one in three Australians under 16 remained active on social media. Platforms had initially shut down 47 million teen accounts globally, but the effect was short-lived.
Australia’s response: bullet-proofing the law
The government has not backed down. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed in late June 2026 to “bullet-proof” the legislation against legal challenges from tech companies. The eSafety Commissioner and Communications Minister Anika Wells are preparing legal action against five of the largest platforms.
Meanwhile, Reddit has filed a lawsuit in Australia’s High Court seeking to overturn the ban on free speech grounds. The government says it will defend the case.
Professor Susan Sawyer, an adolescent health specialist advising the eSafety Commissioner, noted one positive shift: “Social norms are starting to change about what is the right age to get a phone.” Parents are reportedly more willing to police their children’s social media use than they were before the ban.
Which countries are adopting similar bans
Despite Australia’s enforcement struggles, the global momentum toward age restrictions has accelerated.
United Kingdom: Perhaps the most significant adopter. In June 2026, the UK government proposed a national ban for under-16s effective spring 2027. It covers Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X, and goes further than Australia by also prohibiting livestreaming and stranger communication with children on gaming platforms including Roblox. Messaging apps WhatsApp and Signal are exempt. Prime Minister Keir Starmer described it as “a big step for our country.”
European Union: The European Parliament voted 483-92 in November 2025 for a non-binding resolution urging a minimum age of 16. In May 2026, the European Commission began formal work on legislative proposals. Most member states are considering their own restrictions.
Canada: Federal legislation has been proposed but has not yet passed into law.
Indonesia and Brazil: Both have implemented social media bans for children under 16, though with different enforcement mechanisms. Brazil requires minors to link accounts to a legal guardian rather than enforcing a full ban.
Which countries are not following
United States: No national social media ban has passed Congress. Instead, state-level restrictions are being tested in the courts. A reworked Arkansas law was blocked by a federal judge in April 2026. The ACLU has led coalition opposition, arguing that age restrictions infringe on minors’ constitutional right to access information and free expression.
China: Has not adopted a social media ban. Instead, China enforces strict screen time limits for minors, restricting gaming hours and app usage rather than banning platforms outright.
The criticisms that will not go away
The arguments against blanket bans are consistent across every jurisdiction:
- Technical porosity. As the BMJ study shows, age verification technology is not ready for prime time. Self-reported age and selfie checks are trivially easy to bypass.
- Displacement risk. Critics argue that bans push teens toward unregulated corners of the internet where there are no safeguards at all.
- Privacy concerns. Robust age verification requires collecting sensitive personal data, including government-issued ID. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called this “the human cost of online age verification.”
- Free expression. Reddit’s High Court challenge is the most prominent example, but civil liberties groups across multiple countries are preparing similar legal battles.
- A “lazy” policy. Some experts argue that bans are a substitute for broader online safety strategies, including digital literacy education, better platform design, and parental support.
The verdict
Six months in, the evidence suggests that Australia’s ban is failing its primary objective. The 85% continued-usage figure from the BMJ study is hard to spin. The ban has, however, shifted the conversation. Parents are asking harder questions. Politicians in the UK, EU, and Canada are taking legislative action. The eSafety Commissioner is preparing the first major enforcement action against platforms.
Whether this is the beginning of a genuine global movement or a well-intentioned experiment that ran into reality depends on what happens next. If Australia’s enforcement action succeeds, if age verification technology improves, and if the UK’s 2027 ban learns from Australia’s mistakes, we may look back on this as the moment the tide turned. If not, it risks becoming a cautionary tale about the gap between legislative ambition and technical reality.
“The technology exists, the political will exists, and the public demand exists. The question is whether the enforcement can catch up to the intent.”
Related reading: