Australia’s under-16 social media ban is in force but many teens remain online

Australia’s ban on social media accounts for users under 16 went into force on December 10, 2025, under the Online Safety Act.

Platforms must take reasonable steps to keep age-restricted users from holding accounts under Section 63D of the Online Safety Act. Breaching the age rule carried a maximum penalty of A$49.5 million when the ban began, and the ceiling now stands at A$109.2 million, about $76 million. A proposal would double the top penalty to A$99 million, or close to $69 million, from about A$50 million or $34 million.

The eSafety Commissioner is investigating several platforms for potential noncompliance with the under-16 ban. Since September 12, 2026, the commissioner can demand information and documents and summon people for examination under oath or affirmation. Refusing to answer can mean 12 months in prison, and the commissioner may summon current or former staff of companies under investigation. A proposed federal amendment would allow the commissioner to seek documents from platforms and other organizations thought to hold evidence.

Australia’s online safety watchdog found that accounts held by 10- to 15-year-olds dropped by about 20 percent on age-restricted platforms during the first three months. The commissioner said that 50 percent of under-16 account holders had not received an age confirmation request three months after the ban. The government said in June that over 5 million under-16 accounts were removed, deactivated, or restricted. Meta said it blocked more than 750,000 Facebook and Instagram accounts in Australia.

A study of more than 400 Australian teenagers found that more than 85 percent of under-16 participants were still using covered platforms three months after the ban. A University of Chicago working paper studied teenagers aged 14 and 15 covered by the ban. It found about 73 percent still using banned platforms. A study in the British Medical Journal said compliance was incomplete, circumvention was substantial, and implementation was limited.

Teenagers get around the ban using VPNs or tricks such as drawing a moustache on their face to pass selfie age-verification scans, and fake accounts were used by between 15 percent and 19 percent of teenagers on restricted services. Private browsers were used by 6 percent to 11 percent. Only about two-thirds of under-16s still on restricted platforms said they had encountered any sophisticated age check, though platforms commonly asked for a stated age or a selfie. The law also prohibits requiring government ID or Digital ID unless reasonable alternative means are offered.

Meta says it complies with the Australian law but calls blanket bans ineffective because they drive teens to unregulated corners of the internet. Snap says it takes the law seriously and rejects claims that its design addicts children or puts profit before safety. TikTok says safety is central to its platform and that the platform fosters a safe and positive space. Meta uses artificial intelligence to scan profile posts, comments, bios, and captions for clues that an account is under 16.

The lawsuit had not been filed by October 20, 2026. Two teenagers have challenged the ban in Australia’s High Court on grounds that it infringes the implied freedom of communication, and the Digital Freedom Project backs them. Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project mounted a separate High Court challenge over verification processes they call intrusive and potentially insecure, with a hearing set for November.

Noah Jones was 15 when the ban began and is now a witness in a High Court challenge. One platform used artificial intelligence to scan Jones’s face and judged him old enough, while others let him enter by lying about his age.

South Australia Premier Peter Malinauskas announced plans for a state ban two years ago, and the national government backed the move with bipartisan support soon after. In December 2025, Australia enacted what was then the first national social media ban for users under 16. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in June that large technology firms are not complying enough and that too many children remain on social media. Communications Minister Anika Wells said on October 15 that the law itself is not failing but platforms are not complying.

Julie Inman Grant came from Microsoft and Twitter and switched sides over concerns that tech companies were not doing enough. Inman Grant met with platform engineers and product staff in September of last year to check their capabilities. She thinks some platforms want the ban to fail and spend more time lobbying other governments than on complying.

The commissioner called it a global test case while Norway, Spain, and Canada develop similar laws. Dozens of governments have proposed bans based on Australia’s crackdown. The United Arab Emirates has proposed a ban, and so has the United Kingdom. Its ban is more restrictive and comes into force next year.

About seven in 10 parents reported a child’s account still on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. Resolve Political Monitor polling found nearly 70 percent of voters back the ban, while just 35 percent believe tech companies will block underage users. Fewer than 30 percent of parents plan to remove apps from their children’s phones, and more than half will decide case by case.

Covered platforms include TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Kick, and Twitch. Children younger than 16 cannot hold accounts on 10 major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X.