More than eight in 10 Australian teenagers were still using social media three months after the government’s landmark ban on platforms for under-16s took effect, according to a study published by the country’s internet regulator on Friday.
The eSafety Commissioner’s report found platform use remained above 81 percent in March 2026, barely down from 86 percent before the ban began on 10 December 2025. About 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily — a drop of just two percentage points.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
The world’s first ban on under-16 social media use has not worked. Tech platforms failed to implement effective age verification, half of children said their age was never checked, and daily usage barely moved. The result is a case study in what happens when regulation outpaces enforcement capability — one New Zealand is watching closely.
What the Study Found
The eSafety study, prepared by a global advisory panel of university researchers, compared data from more than 4,000 children and families before the ban started and three months later. It is the first report released as part of a two-year evaluation of the ban.
Key findings:
- Platform use above 81 percent three months after the ban, down from nearly 86 percent
- 58 percent of teenagers report daily social media use, barely down from 60 percent
- About half of teens who retained accounts said platforms did not check their age
- Account ownership declined modestly — from 52 percent to 42 percent — with statistically significant reductions across YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok
- Parental awareness of children’s social media habits decreased
Most under-16s who had social media accounts before the ban were able to either retain them or create new ones, the report found. The most common reason: platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures.
How Teens Got Around It
The study identified several methods teens used to remain on platforms despite the ban. About half said platforms simply never checked their age. Others said their accounts listed them as 16 or older, or that age-checking systems incorrectly determined they were above the limit.
The findings broadly matched snapshot data eSafety published in late March. After that update, the regulator announced it was investigating possible non-compliance by five platforms: Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Google’s YouTube.
The Australian government said in June it would double the maximum penalty for tech firms that fail to uphold the ban and strengthen eSafety’s information-gathering powers, allowing it to compel social media companies to provide evidence of what they have done to stop under-16s from getting accounts.
Meta, Snapchat, TikTok, and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Enforcement Gap
The eSafety report highlights a structural problem that goes beyond Australia: age verification on the internet is technically difficult to enforce without either compromising privacy or creating a surveillance infrastructure that creates its own risks. Platforms can implement age checks, but determined teenagers — and platforms with weak incentives to lose users — have proven resourceful at circumventing them.
This is the same tension we explored in our earlier analysis of the under-16 ban’s security mindset implications. The ban was always going to live or die on enforcement, and the first data is now in: enforcement is not working.
As The Spinoff asked in July, the ban’s critics argued from the start that without robust age assurance technology — which does not yet exist at scale — the policy would function as a suggestion rather than a restriction. Three months of data appears to confirm that prediction.
What This Means for New Zealand
New Zealand has been watching Australia’s experiment closely. The previous National-led government signaled interest in similar measures, and the debate over social media and young people’s mental health has been active in NZ politics.
The Australian data presents a cautionary signal. If a country with Australia’s regulatory infrastructure and dedicated online safety commissioner cannot make an under-16 ban stick, the technical and enforcement challenges for a smaller jurisdiction like New Zealand would be at least as significant.
The broader question is whether the problem is the ban itself or the implementation. Australia’s government is doubling down on penalties and enforcement powers rather than retreating from the policy. But the eSafety report suggests the bottleneck is not regulatory will — it is the absence of age verification technology that is both effective and privacy-preserving. No amount of penalty escalation solves that gap.
❓ FAQ
What was Australia’s social media ban? A law prohibiting social media platforms from allowing under-16s to create or maintain accounts, which took effect on 10 December 2025. It was the first national ban of its kind in the world.
Is the ban still in effect? Yes. The Australian government has doubled penalties for non-compliant platforms and strengthened the regulator’s information-gathering powers rather than repealing the law.
Why are teens still using social media? The eSafety study found that platforms failed to implement effective age verification. Half of teens who kept their accounts said their age was never checked. Others had accounts listing them as 16 or older, or age-checking systems incorrectly classified them as above the limit.
Could New Zealand introduce a similar ban? NZ has signaled interest but the Australian data suggests the enforcement challenges are significant. Without effective, privacy-preserving age verification technology, a ban may function as a suggestion rather than a restriction.
Did account ownership drop at all? Yes, modestly — from 52 percent to 42 percent. The reductions were most notable on YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok. But daily usage among those who remained barely changed.
🔍 THE BOTTOM LINE
Australia’s under-16 social media ban was always going to be a test case for the world. Three months in, the test has produced a clear result: a ban without working age verification is a regulation on paper, not in practice. The platforms did not build the systems, the teens did not leave, and the regulator is now left escalating penalties against companies that calculated — correctly, so far — that the cost of non-compliance is lower than the cost of losing their youngest users. Whether that calculus changes with doubled fines remains to be seen. New Zealand should be paying attention.
