Australia: social media ban does not reduce use among minors

What has happened?

Australia implemented in December 2025 a pioneering law that prohibits the use of social media for minors under 16. However, a study published by the eSafety Commissioner in July 2026 reveals that, three months later, 81% of adolescents aged 10 to 15 still use these platforms, just five points less than the 86% recorded before the ban.

The research, which surveyed more than 1,500 minors, found that the frequency of use barely changed: 58% reported using them daily or more, compared to 60% previously. Additionally, the study found that account ownership fell from 52% to 42%, with significant reductions on YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, but most minors simply kept their accounts or created new ones. The report, published on Friday, also reveals that about half of the children who kept their accounts said that the platforms never verified their age, while others indicated that their accounts were listed with an age of 16 or older, or that verification systems erroneously classified them as adults.

This phenomenon is not new in the history of technology regulation. Recall that in 2023, the age verification law for adults in the United Kingdom (Online Safety Act) also faced criticism for its poor enforcement, and subsequent studies showed that 40% of under-13s still accessed social media despite restrictions. However, Australia became the first country to impose a total age ban, making it a global experiment. The key difference in this case is that the Australian law not only restricted access but also required platforms to implement age verification measures, a requirement that clearly has not been met.

Why is it important?

This law was considered a global experiment in social media regulation. Its partial failure sends a strong message to other governments contemplating similar measures: banning without effective age verification mechanisms is insufficient. Furthermore, the study reveals that parental supervision decreased after the ban, possibly because parents trusted that the law would protect their children. This 'responsibility shift' effect is a concerning finding, as active parental involvement is one of the most effective factors in mitigating online risks, as demonstrated by previous research from the Pew Research Center (2021) and the University of Oxford (2020).

The lack of compliance by platforms is alarming: half of the minors who kept their accounts said that companies never verified their age. This contradicts the promises of big tech companies to implement robust verification systems. Meta, for example, had announced in 2024 that it would use artificial intelligence to estimate users' ages, but the Australian results suggest that these technologies have not been properly deployed or are easily circumvented. In contrast, the European Union has advanced with the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires risk assessments for minors, but has not yet imposed total bans. This contrast underscores that regulation alone is not enough; a combination of technology, education, and industry cooperation is needed.

What consequences will it have?

This report could slow legislative efforts in other countries. For example, in the United States several states have proposed similar laws, such as California's Online Child Safety Act (2024) and the federal KIDS Act (2025), but the Australian results will demonstrate that age verification technology is not ready. A 2025 report by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had already warned that biometric age verification methods pose serious privacy and exclusion risks. Now, legislators will have to consider whether it is viable to impose obligations that companies cannot technically fulfill or that violate fundamental rights.

Platforms could face fines or sanctions for non-compliance. The Australian government has already announced that it will review the regulatory framework and may require companies to implement stricter verification measures, such as government identity verification. However, this creates tensions with privacy and data protection, as noted by the Australian Privacy Commission in its annual report (2026). Additionally, the study shows that there were no significant changes in minors' habits regarding physical activity, socialization, or community participation, suggesting that the ban has not had the expected positive impact on overall well-being. This could lead to a reassessment of the law's objectives, which initially focused on protecting young people's mental health.

Internationally, this case could drive the development of digital identity and biometric verification solutions, although experts warn about privacy risks. For example, the technology company Yoti already offers age verification systems through facial estimation, but these have been criticized for potential algorithmic biases. Pressure on platforms to comply with Australian law could also accelerate the adoption of common standards, such as the age verification protocol developed by the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS). However, it is premature to expect a universal solution, as effective age verification requires balancing security, privacy, and accessibility, a technical and ethical challenge that still has no clear answer.

What should readers know?

• The ban has not achieved its main objective: reducing the time minors spend on social media. The frequency of daily use only fell from 60% to 58%, a statistically insignificant difference.
• Minors are circumventing the restriction with simple methods (lying about their age, using adult accounts). The study found that most of those who kept their accounts did so because platforms did not verify their age, indicating a systemic failure in implementation.
• Responsibility lies with platforms, which have not implemented reliable age verification systems. Meta, ByteDance (TikTok), and Google (YouTube) have invested in AI technologies, but the Australian results show that they are not sufficient or are not applied consistently.
• Parents must maintain active supervision, as the law is not a magic solution. The decrease in parental supervision is a dangerous side effect, as minors are more exposed to risks such as cyberbullying or exposure to inappropriate content.
• This case demonstrates that technology regulation requires a multifactorial approach: digital education, parental control tools, and corporate cooperation. No law alone can solve the problem, as evidenced by the Australian experience.

In conclusion, the eSafety Commissioner's study is a hard blow to the narrative that legal bans can solve online safety problems. Governments must learn from this partial failure and adopt more holistic strategies, including active participation from platforms, parent education, and the development of privacy-respecting technologies. Meanwhile, users and families must be aware that the ultimate responsibility lies with them, not legislation.