A new study published in the British Medical Journal has cast doubt on the immediate effectiveness of Australia’s world-first social media age restrictions, which aim to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X. Conducted by researchers from the University of Newcastle, the study tracked 408 adolescents aged 12 to 17 during the three months following the implementation of the Social Media Minimum Age Act 2024. The data reveals that the legislative effort has so far fallen short of its goal, with more than 85 percent of participants under the age of 16 reporting continued access to restricted platforms.
The findings highlight a significant gap between policy intent and digital reality. While approximately two-thirds of the adolescents surveyed encountered some form of age verification—most commonly self-declared age or photo-based “selfie” checks—these measures proved largely ineffective at blocking access. A substantial majority of underage users continued to log into the platforms using their own existing accounts. Even when verification was triggered, the study documented widespread circumvention, with participants utilizing fake accounts, shared access through friends or family members, and private browser modes to bypass the new digital barriers.
Lead investigator Dr. Courtney Barnes of the Hunter Medical Research Institute’s (HMRI) Population Health Research program noted that there has been virtually no change in social media habits since the law’s introduction. According to the self-reported data, the time spent on these platforms remained steady for most age groups, with only a marginal decline in daily usage observed among 14- to 15-year-olds. Conversely, usage rates actually increased for those over 16, suggesting that the legislation has not yet prompted a broad shift in adolescent digital engagement or the prevalence of social media in daily life.
As governments worldwide observe Australia’s experiment with interest, the University of Newcastle team emphasized that these results represent only an initial snapshot. Professor Luke Wolfenden, a behavioural scientist and co-investigator, advised that the policy is still in its infancy, and its long-term viability will likely hinge on the evolution of compliance mechanisms. As platforms refine their age-assurance technologies, the landscape of digital access may shift; however, the study argues that current methods lack the necessary robustness to restrict content effectively at scale.
The research underscores the complexity of regulating the digital lives of young people, as underlying patterns of usage are driven by deeply entrenched social and environmental factors. Because current enforcement measures are easily circumvented, the mere existence of the Act has not yet translated into a tangible reduction in adolescent screen time or exposure. Professor Wolfenden noted that while the study focused primarily on access, the findings suggest that until age-verification measures become significantly more consistent and tamper-proof, the impact on adolescent behaviour will likely remain minimal.
Looking forward, the research team is calling for more rigorous, long-term evaluations of the Act. They maintain that the full societal impacts of such a sweeping piece of legislation—both in terms of digital access and broader adolescent mental health—may take years to fully emerge and stabilize. The study serves as a critical baseline, contributing to a growing global discourse on how to protect young users online without relying on measures that users are currently adept at bypassing. For now, the Australian experiment remains a cautionary tale on the challenges of enforcing age-based restrictions in a hyper-connected digital age.