A landmark study published in The BMJ on June 29, 2026, has cast significant doubt on the efficacy of Australia’s world-first ban on social media for children under 16. Despite the legislation being enacted last December to reduce youth exposure to online harm, researchers from the University of Newcastle found that approximately 85 percent of children under the age of 16 are still accessing social media platforms. The findings suggest that the government’s attempt to restrict digital access has had a negligible impact on actual behavior, leaving the policy’s primary objectives largely unfulfilled.
The data reveals a stark disconnect between the law’s intent and the reality of teenage online habits. While social media usage remained stagnant among 12- to 13-year-olds, there was only a marginal decline—from 78 percent to 69 percent—in usage among those aged 14 and 15. More notably, daily usage among teenagers over 16 actually increased by nine percent. Commenting on these trends, Andy Burrows, chief executive of the suicide prevention charity the Molly Rose Foundation, noted that the research confirms the legislation has failed to foster any “meaningful difference” in the amount of time teenagers spend on high-risk platforms.
Under the current Australian framework, social media companies are legally mandated to take “reasonable steps” to verify user ages and prevent underage accounts. However, the study identifies a significant enforcement gap, noting that between 54 and 68 percent of underage users are still accessing these platforms through their own personal accounts. While two-thirds of young users reported being prompted by platforms to verify their age, these hurdles appear insufficient. Contrary to expectations, the study found little evidence of widespread VPN usage, suggesting that the ban is being bypassed largely through simple workarounds like creating new accounts with false birth dates or sharing logins with others.
This research reinforces earlier concerns regarding the policy’s feasibility. Just three months after the restrictions were implemented, surveys conducted by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner revealed that seven in 10 parents admitted their underage children still maintained active social media presence. These repeated indicators of non-compliance suggest that the legislative approach has struggled to keep pace with the digital adaptation of younger generations, rendering the “reasonable steps” required of tech firms largely ineffective at preventing sustained access.
As the United Kingdom accelerates its own plans to introduce a similar under-16 social media ban, the Australian results serve as a cautionary tale. British Technology Minister Kanishka Narayan has indicated that the UK intends to bypass the shortcomings of the Australian model by mandating “highly effective age assurance” measures rather than the vague “reasonable steps” currently required in Australia. The UK government hopes that stricter, more technical standards will provide the enforcement mechanism that has so far proven elusive in the Australian experiment.
However, some experts argue that the focus on children’s behavior misses the fundamental point of the legislation. In a commentary for The BMJ, Louise Holly, policy and research coordinator at the University of Geneva, described the study’s findings as “worrying” but cautioned against framing the situation as a failure of childhood compliance. She argued that the responsibility lies with the platforms themselves, noting that “the law was not designed to change the habits of children, but the practices of selected social media platforms.” As the debate continues, the focus remains on whether future regulations can bridge the gap between ambitious policy design and the complex realities of modern digital connectivity.