Australia’s flagship social media ban for under-16s has failed to deliver any meaningful reduction in the number of young people logging on, according to the first major study of the law’s impact. The findings raise serious questions about the viability of a similar ban proposed by Sir Keir Starmer for the United Kingdom.
Study Finds Majority of Under-16s Still Online
Research published in The BMJ examined Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act, which came into force in December 2025 and requires platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s holding accounts. Scientists surveyed 408 Australian 12 to 17-year-olds before the restrictions were introduced and then again three months later.
More than 85 per cent of under-16s reported using social media platforms covered by the legislation at follow-up, most through their own accounts. Daily social media use among 12 and 13-year-olds remained largely unchanged after the ban. It fell slightly among 14 and 15-year-olds but rose among those aged 16 and over. Statistical analysis found insufficient evidence that the law had substantially reduced overall social media use.
“Little evidence was found of immediate substantive reductions in reported social media use by adolescents under 16 years,” the authors wrote. The researchers cautioned that longer-term monitoring will be needed before the policy can be fully judged and noted that “the full impacts of the Act may not be evident for a decade.”
How Young People Circumvented Australia’s Age Checks
Two-thirds of adolescents reported encountering age-verification checks, but the measures proved porous. The most common checks involved users declaring their age or uploading a selfie photograph. Researchers found 15 to 19 per cent of under-16s reported using fake accounts, while six to 11 per cent accessed platforms through private or incognito browsers. Some children resorted to drawing beards on their faces to fool AI age-estimation scanners.
The authors described implementation of age-verification measures as “suboptimal” and said the first months after the law came into force had been characterised by “limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention of social media restrictions.”
The Australian eSafety Commissioner has raised “significant concerns” about the practices of five major platforms, noting that many under-16s still have or can create accounts. The commissioner admitted the legislation is a “very blunt force approach” and that the regulator lacks comprehensive powers to police the law adequately, comparing the age verification laws to trying to “fence the ocean.” As of mid-January, more than 4.7 million accounts assessed as belonging to under-16s had been removed, deactivated or restricted, but no fines have been issued to tech giants.
The study suggested the ban might be more effective at preventing or delaying access for children under eight rather than adolescents who already use social media. The initial rationale for the ban, framed as an “emergency firebreak,” has shifted, with politicians now recasting the bans as delays to account opening or ways to reset cultural norms rather than immediate policy solutions.
UK Proposals and the Growing Debate
Sir Keir Starmer announced plans for a UK ban on social media for under-16s, aiming to block millions of children from using platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, X, Facebook and potentially YouTube. The ban, expected to take effect in spring 2027, will also include restrictions on livestreaming and the ability to communicate with strangers on gaming sites. AI chatbots designed to simulate romantic or sexual relationships will be restricted to over-18s, with intimate functions for under-18s banned. Messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal will be exempt.
Tech companies will be responsible for enforcement, facing potential multimillion-dollar fines for non-compliance. Starmer has acknowledged the challenges of enforcement but expressed belief in its possibility, drawing an analogy to efforts to prevent underage drinking. The UK government claims that up to 90 per cent of British parents support the policy, based on responses to a consultation. The UK plans to use Australia’s model but aims to implement more robust measures.
Supporters of restrictions argue smartphones and social media are fuelling a mental health crisis among young people. However, critics warn age-verification systems are intrusive, easy to bypass and may do little to tackle the underlying problem. Technology firms including Meta and Snap have argued that blanket bans risk pushing children towards less regulated corners of the internet, where they may be less likely to report harm. Opponents also argue the evidence for such sweeping restrictions remains far from settled, noting that online platforms can provide opportunities for connection, self-expression and access to information, and can support social development and the maintenance of peer relationships.
Some warn that enforcing age restrictions could jeopardise people’s privacy, requiring intrusive age-verification systems for users of all ages, including photographs, identity documents or other personal data. Earlier this year more than 400 scientists and academics signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on age-assurance systems, arguing that their effectiveness has not been proven and warning they risk creating privacy, security and surveillance concerns while remaining relatively easy for determined young people to bypass.
Many say the debate has become increasingly driven by political pressure rather than evidence, pointing out that research on social media and mental health remains mixed and that experts continue to disagree about the scale of any harms and the best way to address them. The researchers behind the Australian study stressed that stronger age-assurance systems may be required if governments want such bans to work.