Australia Social Media Ban Results: 8 in 10 Kids Still Online

Before Australia’s under-16 social media ban took effect on December 10, 2025, nearly 86% of surveyed children aged 10 to 15 used at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, the figure was still above 81%. Those are the first Australia social media ban results from the country’s own internet regulator, eSafety, as reported by Al Jazeera on August 1, 2026. Daily use barely moved. About half of the children who kept accounts said the platforms had never checked their age. And one finding should worry every parent watching from another country: parents’ awareness of what their children were doing online went down. Millions of accounts were closed, the government says, and the ban has changed the conversation. But it has not, so far, taken most kids off social media.

Key Takeaways

• Australia’s ban took effect December 10, 2025. Three months later, more than 81% of surveyed children aged 10 to 15 still used at least one restricted platform, down from nearly 86% before.
• Daily use fell only from about 60% to about 58%. Most children used social media as often in March as before the ban.
• About half of children who kept accounts said platforms never checked their age. Others said their accounts listed them as 16 or older, or that age checks judged them older.
• Parental awareness of children’s use decreased, according to eSafety, which suggests some use moved out of parents’ sight.
• The lesson for other countries is less about whether to ban and more about enforcement design: age assurance, workarounds like VPNs, and keeping parents informed.

What Australia’s Under-16 Ban Requires

Australia’s social media minimum age law is an amendment to the Online Safety Act 2021, passed as the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 (Act No. 127 of 2024). It requires age-restricted social media platforms to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. It took effect December 10, 2025.

Two design features shape how it works in practice. First, as RMIT University professor Lisa M. Given explains in The Conversation, the law requires platforms to take “reasonable steps” to stop under-16s from holding accounts. It does not stop children from viewing content without logging in. Second, the obligation is written for the platforms, not for families: the duty to take reasonable steps sits with the companies.

The First Australia Social Media Ban Results

The regulator’s three-month study

eSafety surveyed children aged 10 to 15 before the ban and again about three months after. Al Jazeera’s August 2026 report on the findings gives these figures:

• Use of at least one restricted platform: nearly 86% before, above 81% three months later.
• Daily use: about 60% before, about 58% after.
• Accounts: most under-16s who had accounts before either kept them or created new ones.
• Age checks: about half of those who kept accounts said the platforms had never checked their age. Others said their accounts listed them as 16 or older, or that age-checking systems wrongly judged them older.
• Main reason for continued access, per eSafety: “social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures.”
• Parental awareness: decreased. The report did not give a figure.
• Offline life: little change in sports and physical activity, arts and music, time with friends and family, or community events.

The sample size wasn’t reported in the coverage I could access, and eSafety’s own release was not reachable when I checked, so these numbers come via Al Jazeera.

The government’s view

Andrew Leigh, an assistant minister, defended the ban, saying “we’ve had millions of accounts shut down” and “we never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance.” Given’s analysis puts the figure at nearly 5 million accounts deactivated, removed or restricted, citing a government source.

An independent survey

A separate survey by Michael Dezuanni of Queensland University of Technology and Simon Chambers and Tanya Notley of Western Sydney University asked 1,027 young people aged 10 to 17 in February 2026, about two months after the ban. Of under-16s who had used banned platforms, 61% reported little or no change in their social media use and 26% said their use had been affected. Among those whose use was significantly disrupted, 51% said they were getting less news as a direct result.

Why So Many Kids Are Still Online

The workarounds are mostly technical, and they follow from how age checks work.

Age assurance is imprecise. Platforms can verify age with ID documents, infer it from account data, or estimate it from a face scan. Facial age estimation produces a guess with a margin of error. Given cites studies putting age-assurance error rates at one to three years. For a 14-year-old who looks 16, that margin is the whole ban.

Old accounts survive. Many children opened accounts with a false birth year long before the ban. A platform that only checks new sign-ups will miss them. About half of children who kept accounts said they’d never been asked.

Workarounds spread fast. Given describes children using VPNs, masks and older siblings to beat age checks, and moving to gaming and messaging apps not covered by the ban.

Logged-out viewing is still possible. Because the law targets accounts, a child can still watch much public content without signing in, with no personalization but also no account-level safety settings.

Ban Outcomes at a Glance

Measure	Before ban (late 2025)	About 3 months after	Source
Children 10–15 using at least one restricted platform	Nearly 86%	Above 81%	eSafety study, via Al Jazeera
Daily use	About 60%	About 58%	eSafety study, via Al Jazeera
Kept accounts but never age-checked	—	About half of those with accounts	eSafety study, via Al Jazeera
Parental awareness of children’s use	Baseline	Decreased	eSafety study, via Al Jazeera
Under-16 users reporting little or no change	—	61%	Dezuanni, Chambers & Notley survey, Feb. 2026
Accounts deactivated, removed or restricted	—	Nearly 5 million	Government figure cited by Given

Lessons for Other Countries and for Parents

Lesson 1: A ban can lower parental visibility

This is the finding that should travel. If a child keeps using a platform their parent believes is off-limits, the child has every reason to hide it. A rule that pushes use underground can make it harder for parents to see problems, such as contact from strangers or distressing content, that the ban was meant to prevent. Whatever the law says, keep talking with your child about what they use.

Lesson 2: Enforcement design is the policy

The UK, which announced in June 2026 that it would ban social media for under-16s, appears to have learned from Australia. Its plan includes rigorous age checks, and later additions require social media companies to detect and prevent VPN use by under-16s. It also extends restrictions to harmful functions on gaming services, where Australian kids migrated. Brazil’s ECA Digital, in force since March 2026, requires effective age verification and says self-declaration alone isn’t enough.

Lesson 3: Supervised accounts are an alternative model

Brazil’s law lets under-16s use social networks only through accounts linked to a parent’s. That trades a hard ban for supervision, keeping parents in the loop. Whether it works better is not yet known.

Lesson 4: Evaluation needs time

Three months is early. Amy Orben, who sits on eSafety’s academic advisory group for the evaluation, said in January 2026 that results should be known within a year. A fuller picture should arrive by early 2027.

What Parents Can Do, Wherever They Live

Make your house rule visible and talkable

If you set an age limit, explain it, and make clear your child can come to you if something goes wrong online even if they broke the rule. Australia’s drop in parental awareness is what happens when rules make honesty costly.

Check for old accounts

Many children have accounts opened with a false age. Ask, without punishing, which apps your child has accounts on and what age those accounts list.

Don’t rely on the platform’s age check

The ban’s results show age assurance misses a lot. Use device-level parental controls and app-store age ratings as a second layer.

Watch the migration

When one platform is restricted, kids move to another, often gaming or messaging apps. Know what your child uses for chat and whether strangers can contact them there.

What not to do

Don’t assume a law has solved the problem in your house, and don’t punish disclosure. A child who admits to a secret account is giving you exactly the visibility the Australian data suggest parents lose. For age rules elsewhere, see our guide to 2026 social media age restrictions, and for the UK’s experiment, the 1-hour cap and curfew trial.

What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months

• Week 4: Look for eSafety’s fuller evaluation reports and any enforcement actions against platforms. The three-month data are a first look, not a verdict.
• Month 2 red flags: In your own home, a child who suddenly becomes secretive about their phone, deletes apps when you approach, or uses new messaging apps you don’t recognize. Those are signs of the visibility gap.
• Month 3 self-check: Do you know every app your child uses to talk to other people? If you can name them, you have the visibility a ban can’t provide.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Australia’s social media ban working?

At three months, it had reduced use only slightly. eSafety found more than 81% of surveyed 10- to 15-year-olds still used at least one restricted platform, down from nearly 86%. The government says millions of accounts were closed and never expected full compliance. A fuller evaluation is expected within a year.

How are Australian kids getting around the ban?

Through accounts that were never age-checked, accounts listing an older age, age-estimation errors, VPNs, help from older siblings, and moving to gaming and messaging apps. About half of children who kept accounts said platforms never checked their age.

Who is responsible for enforcing Australia’s ban?

The platforms. The law requires age-restricted platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding accounts. The obligation is framed around what companies must do, and none of the coverage I reviewed describes penalties for children or parents.

What can other countries learn from Australia’s ban?

That enforcement design matters as much as the age limit. Weak age checks, logged-out viewing and workarounds blunted Australia’s ban, and parents’ awareness of their children’s use fell. The UK’s plan adds VPN detection and covers gaming functions.

Did the ban get kids doing more offline activities?

Not yet, according to eSafety’s three-month data reported by Al Jazeera. There was little change in sports, arts and music, time with friends and family, or community events. That fits a broader pattern: removing a screen doesn’t automatically fill the time.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

---

Sources

1. Al Jazeera. (2026). “Most Australian teens still online three months after under-16 ban.” August 1, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/1/most-australian-teens-still-online-three-months-after-under-16-ban
2. Given, L. M. (2026). “Australia has already banned social media for under-16s. Here’s what the UK can learn from the experience.” The Conversation, June 15, 2026. https://theconversation.com/australia-has-already-banned-social-media-for-under-16s-heres-what-the-uk-can-learn-from-the-experience-285256
3. Dezuanni, M., Chambers, S., & Notley, T. (2026). “Australian teens impacted by the social media ban are getting less news: new research.” The Conversation, May 17, 2026. https://theconversation.com/australian-teens-impacted-by-the-social-media-ban-are-getting-less-news-new-research-281988
4. Australian Government, Federal Register of Legislation. “Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.” https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00127/latest/text
5. UK Government. “Growing up in the online world.” https://www.gov.uk/growing-up-online
6. University of Cambridge. (2026). “Thousands of UK schoolchildren to take part in major study of social media use and teen mental health.” January 20, 2026. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/irl-trial-social-media-study-launch
7. Tecnoblog. (2026). “ECA Digital entra em vigor para proteger menores na internet; veja mudanças.” March 17, 2026. https://tecnoblog.net/noticias/eca-digital-entra-em-vigor-para-proteger-menores-na-internet-veja-mudancas/