Australia’s world-first social media minimum age law has become one of the most closely watched digital policy experiments in the world. Since it took effect in December 2025, the ban has forced major platforms to remove or restrict millions of under-16 accounts, but early evidence suggests that enforcement is still imperfect and that many teenagers have found ways around it. The bigger question now is not whether the law exists, but whether it is actually changing online behaviour in a lasting way.
In one sense, the policy has been effective. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner reported that about 4.7 million age-restricted accounts were removed or disabled in the first month, showing that platforms did respond quickly to the legal requirement. But compliance reports released in March 2026 also raised serious concerns, saying that some companies allowed repeated age checks, relied too heavily on weak verification methods, and did not consistently stop underage users from creating or keeping accounts. In other words, the ban has had a strong formal impact, but a weaker practical one.
That gap matters because the purpose of the law was not just to reduce account numbers, but to reduce exposure to harmful content, pressure, cyberbullying, and algorithm-driven addiction. Early research suggests the outcomes are mixed. A University of Newcastle study reported that most surveyed teenagers still used social media after the ban, with many using borrowed accounts, false birthdates, or other workarounds. The same reporting also found only a slight drop in daily usage and little evidence yet of a major improvement in online safety. At the same time, some parents have reported benefits such as better offline behaviour and less time spent online, which suggests the law may be helping some families even if it is not fully blocking access.
The Australian experience also highlights a wider policy problem: age restrictions are only as strong as the verification systems behind them. If platforms rely on self-declared birthdays, selfies, or low-friction checks, many teenagers will slip through. If verification becomes too strict, it can create privacy concerns for all users, not just minors. So Australia has shown that a ban can be announced and enforced at scale, but it has also shown how difficult it is to enforce consistently without pushing young people toward less regulated spaces online.
Situation overseas
There are similar debates overseas. Norway is moving toward a higher age limit for social media and has framed the issue as protecting children from algorithmic pressure, but it has also acknowledged that enforcement will be difficult. France has now passed its own under-15 ban, becoming the first EU country to do so, but officials there face the same core challenge: proving age without creating a privacy problem and without encouraging circumvention. These examples suggest that Australia is not alone; it is simply the first country to test the idea at full scale.
Lessons Learnt
The most important lesson so far is that social media age bans may be only one part of the answer. They can reduce access for some children, put pressure on platforms, and spark a much-needed public debate. But they do not automatically solve the deeper issues of harmful content, weak age verification, or the social needs that draw young people online in the first place. A more complete approach may need better parental tools, stronger platform design rules, digital literacy, and support for children who are vulnerable to isolation or online abuse.
Australia has done what many countries only talked about doing. The early results show real compliance gains, but also major enforcement gaps and only limited evidence of long-term behavioural change. That makes the law less of a finished solution and more of a live test case for the rest of the world.
What do you think?
What do you think matters more: keeping under-16s off social media altogether, or making the platforms safer for everyone who uses them?
Resources used: Australian eSafety Commission compliance update and social media age restrictions page / Reuters coverage of the first month of enforcement / University of Newcastle / BMJ reporting via The Guardian / BBC reporting on Australia, France, and the broader policy debate / Reuters coverage of Norway’s planned age limit