More than eight in ten Australian children under 16 are still using social media, even though the country passed a law banning them from it, according to a study by Australia's internet regulator eSafety. The study, conducted about three months after the ban started, found that the law has barely changed how children use platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.

Australia's ban took effect on December 10, 2025. It was the first law in the world to stop children under 16 from using social media (Al Jazeera). The government passed it because of concerns about how social media affects children's mental and physical health. The law targets ten of the biggest platforms and can fine them up to AUD $33 million if they don't take reasonable steps to block users under 16 (Reuters). Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

Before the ban, about 86 percent of the children surveyed used at least one of the restricted platforms. Three months later, that number was still above 81 percent. Daily use dropped only slightly, from about 60 percent to 58 percent. Most children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as often in March 2026 as they were before the law started (Al Jazeera).

A separate study of 408 teenagers, reported by Reuters in June, found that 85 percent of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still on social media three months after the ban (Reuters). Both studies tell the same story: the ban has not changed children's behavior the way its creators hoped.

eSafety said the main reason children still have access is that platforms are not checking ages effectively. About half of the children who kept their accounts said no platform had checked their age at all (Al Jazeera). The regulator has also warned that people offering to sell fake IDs or age-verified accounts to children are likely running scams, and has advised against paying them or sharing personal photos (eSafety).

There are structural reasons the ban has been hard to enforce. Under Australia's law, children under 16 and their parents face no penalties for using these platforms. Only the platforms themselves can be punished (eSafety). By January 16, social media companies had closed about 4.7 million accounts that belonged to Australian children (Al Jazeera). But that large number did not stop children from getting back on, since usage rates were basically the same by March.

The Australian government has defended the ban since the eSafety findings came out (Reuters). Officials say the policy is meant to work over the long term, as platforms improve their age-checking technology and enforcement gets better. Research commissioned by the government before the ban, led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn in 2023, found that four out of five children aged eight to 16 used social media, which is what motivated the law in the first place (Al Jazeera). eSafety's own survey has also found that most Australian children aged 8 to 12 have used social media or messaging services (eSafety).

The broader context here is that governments around the world are watching this experiment closely. Australia's law is the strongest attempt so far to answer a difficult question: can banning children from social media actually protect them, or does it just push their activity into harder-to-see corners of the internet? The eSafety data suggests the second outcome is already happening alongside the first. Usage has barely dipped. The 4.7 million account closures show that platforms are doing something, but the tiny drop in actual usage means children are likely creating new accounts, getting around age checks, or both.

The law's choice to punish platforms rather than families creates a specific challenge. Platforms have a $33 million reason to comply, but the technology to reliably check someone's age online without demanding invasive identity documents does not yet work well. Tools that estimate age from a face, verify a government ID, or infer age from behavior all have problems with accuracy, privacy, and cost. Half of the accounts that stayed open faced no age check at all, which suggests some platforms have not even set up basic age-verification for their Australian users.

For policymakers in other countries thinking about similar laws, Australia's experience so far is a warning: a ban without the technology to enforce it produces, at best, a small drop in access and, at worst, a false sense that the problem is solved. Whether the $33 million penalty can force platforms to build age-checking systems good enough to close the gap between the law and reality will determine the ban's legacy. Eight months in, that gap is still wide.