Most Australian Teens Still on Social Media Three Months After Under-16 Ban, Study Finds

A Landmark Ban and Its Reality Shaped by Time

Three months after Australia became the first country to implement a nationwide social media ban for under-16s, new research indicates that the policy has not yet achieved its primary goal. The study, described in the report published today, found that most Australian teenagers still use social media regularly, frequently accessing platforms via workarounds such as altered birth dates, virtual private networks, or friends' accounts. The findings underscore the gap between legislative ambition and everyday digital life.

Why the Ban Was Introduced

In November 2024, the Australian parliament passed the Social Media Minimum Age Act, prohibiting under-16s from creating accounts on platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and X. The law, which came into effect three months ago, requires providers to take "reasonable steps" to prevent minors under 16 from having accounts. Penalties can reach up to A$50 million for platforms found to be in systemic breach. The government framed the legislation as essential for protecting children from online harms such as bullying, exploitation and harmful content.

Support for the law was broad, but many social media companies objected, claiming it was rushed and unrealistic. Privacy advocates also warned that age-verification could lead to overbearing data collection. Nevertheless, the law took effect, and platforms began rolling out age-assurance procedures, including uploading identity documents or using facial-age estimation.

What the New Study Found

The study, conducted among a sample of Australian teenagers aged 14 and 15, found that more than three out of four continue to use social media on a weekly basis. The research was carried out three months after the ban took effect, making it one of the first independent assessments of the law's early impact. The researchers used both surveys and interviews, drawing on the experiences of teenagers across different states and school systems.

The results point to steady use of the most popular platforms. Instagram and TikTok remain the dominant channels, followed by Snapchat and YouTube. While some teenagers reported that they had been blocked from creating new accounts with their real age, many quickly adjusted by using an older date of birth or borrowing a parent's phone for verification. Others simply use platforms through browsers, where age checks are often less restrictive than in native apps.

Why Enforcement Is Falling Short

A central finding is the ease with which the ban can be circumvented. Despite marketing materials from social media companies about new age-assurance features, the study found that the most common bypass is as simple as changing a birth year. More sophisticated workarounds include VPNs, SIM cards registered to relatives, and using pre-existing accounts created before the ban took effect. The study also points to the challenge of "shared devices": some teens use their parents' phones or school laptops to access social media, making it impossible for platforms to distinguish between account holders.

The researchers argue that age verification at account creation is not enough, because it only captures a single moment in time. There is no continuous age checking, and no systemic method to identify users who slip through after a profile is approved. Moreover, the law only applies to specific social media platforms. Many messaging, gaming and streaming apps are outside its scope, and some teens have migrated to these spaces, creating new challenges for regulators.

Parental and Platform Role

Parents are an important gatekeeper, but the study suggests that many adults are uncertain about the ban's specifics or lack the tools to enforce it. Some parents support the ban but rely on their children to be honest about their online activity. Others are unaware that accounts created before the ban may still be active. The study suggests that educational campaigns directed at parents could be as important as platform enforcement.

Social media companies, for their part, have stated that they are blocked by a lack of independent verification. They argue that no technology can reliably determine a user's age without being intrusive. Some platforms have expanded their use of algorithmic age estimation, which reviews user behaviour and may require a selfie, but these methods are not foolproof and raise privacy concerns.

Experts React

The study's authors say the findings do not necessarily mean the ban is a failure, but that it requires a more flexible and honest approach. One of the key suggestions is the introduction of an independent body to audit platforms' compliance, rather than relying on self-reporting. Another recommendation is to include digital education in schools alongside the ban, so that teenagers are less inclined to see the law as an arbitrary restriction.

Child rights groups have argued that the ban, while well-intentioned, may drive teens to dangerous corners of the internet. "Simply removing children from mainstream social media does not guarantee their safety," the study notes. "It may push them toward platforms with weaker safeguards and less moderation, where harmful content is easier to access and harder to police." The study therefore calls for regulators to work with technology companies to design safer by default experiences for all users, particularly minors.

What Happens Next

The Australian government has stated that age-assurance technologies will become more stringent over time, and that the industry regulator eSafety will publish transparency reports on enforcement. A government spokesperson said the study provides useful data and that "implementing a new restriction at this scale takes time, and we are committed to refining our approach."

The study's authors plan further research to assess the long-term impact of the ban, including whether teen engagement shifts permanently to less regulated spaces or eventually declines. Meanwhile, digital literacy experts are calling for more investment in education so that teenagers understand the reasons behind the law. They suggest that young people are more likely to comply with rules they understand, rather than restrictions that feel arbitrary.

Broader Implications for Other Countries

This Australian experiment has implications far beyond the country's borders. Several nations, including the United Kingdom, France, and individual U.S. states, are considering similar restrictions. The Australian experience shows what actually happens after a ban is enacted. If a wealthy, digitally connected country with strong regulatory powers struggles to remove teens from social media, other governments may need to consider complementary measures such as curriculum reform, parental tools for default settings, and more transparent platform audits.

The study also raises a crucial question: is the ultimate goal to get teens off social media, or to make social media safer? Three months after the ban, that question remains unresolved, but the evidence is clear: legislation alone cannot instantly change fast-moving digital behavior. The next phase will require a broader coalition of platforms, parents, schools, and young people themselves to make the online world safer without isolating the very people the law is meant to protect.