Australia under-16 social media ban shows little early impact, study finds

Brisbane,UPDATED: Jun 25, 2026 10:56 IST

Six months after Australia’s ban on social media use by under-16s took effect, a new study in the British Medical Journal has found little evidence that children have stopped using platforms such as TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram. More than 85 per cent of under-16s in the study were still using restricted platforms, most of them through their own accounts.

But the article argues that judging the law only by asking whether children are getting around age checks may miss its longer-term purpose. It says the policy may need to be assessed over years, or even a generation, with researchers adding that its full effects may not be clear for a decade.

The study was led by University of Newcastle public health researcher Courtney Barnes. The team followed 408 adolescents aged 12 to 16, surveying them just before the law came into force in December 2025 and again three months later. To isolate the law’s effect, they compared teenagers just below the age cut-off with those just above it.

The researchers found that more than 85 per cent of under-16s were still using restricted platforms at follow-up. Two-thirds had encountered age verification, but the most common check was simply asking users to state their age. A minority said they used fake accounts or private browsing to access social media, while VPN use to evade the ban was rare. The study also found no meaningful gap at the age cut-off between under-16s and those just over 16 who were allowed to keep their accounts.

The researchers said the study had limitations. It may not have had enough participants to detect an effect if one existed, and the sample sizes on either side of the cut-off were small. Even so, the findings were in line with recent research from the eSafety Commissioner, which found that roughly 7 in 10 children kept their accounts after the law came into effect.

The article says it was unrealistic to expect the ban to stop all under-16s from using social media overnight, as online technology can be exploited and its features worked around. It says the law gives the government greater power to put pressure on social media companies and should be viewed more like a generational public health measure. It compares this with Britain’s Tobacco and Vapes Act, which received royal assent in April 2026 and bars anyone born on or after January 1, 2009, from ever being sold tobacco. The aim there is not to make today’s smokers quit, but to ensure smoking never becomes normal for a new generation.

Applying that logic, the article says Australia’s law is betting that if access is delayed for long enough, social media may lose its hold over childhood in the way cigarettes gradually did. It also notes a key difference: tobacco use was pushed back over decades through higher prices, plain packaging and advertising bans, while social media is effectively "free", practically unlimited and designed to maximise engagement. It adds that changing social norms around children’s social media use would require sustained pressure on platforms over many years, as norms are slow to shift and risky content is often rewarded.

The article also points to the risk of unintended consequences. It cites Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the early 1990s, which led some people to cycle less. In the same way, the new study found small numbers of young people turning to fake accounts, private browsing or messaging apps, and it says some may move to less visible parts of the internet that are harder to monitor than mainstream platforms. The researchers say the bigger opportunity may be among children under eight who have not yet started using social media, rather than among teenagers whose habits are already set.

In sum, the study suggests Australia’s under-16 social media ban has not sharply reduced access in its first six months, but the article says that may not be the right test of the law. With other countries now watching Australia’s experiment, it says the real question is whether the restrictions can change behaviour and social norms over the long term.

With PTI Inputs

- Ends