What the UK can learn from Australia’s under-16s social media ban

What the UK can learn from Australia’s under-16s social media ban Many people may think Australia’s ban is a success, but the reality couldn’t be further from the truth - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments As the UK prepares to introduce an “Australia plus” ban on social media for under-16s, many lessons can be learned from Australia’s experiment. Many people may think Australia’s ban is a success, with nearly five million social media accounts deactivated, removed or restricted. But the reality couldn’t be further from the truth. The Australian legislation only requires social media platforms – such as Instagram, TikTok and Facebook – to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding social media accounts. This means children can continue to view social media content – on YouTube, for example – on a web browser, without having an account. This legislation applies to all platforms whose “sole or significant purpose” is to enable “online social interaction”, allowing people to link to or interact with others, and to post material on the platform. However, the legislation excludes gaming platforms, messaging apps and platforms whose “sole or primary purpose” is educational or health related. The government provides a self-assessment guide for platforms to identify whether they must restrict access. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner did provide an “initial list” of ten platforms considered “likely” to fall under the legislation. These included Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, X, and Twitch. Reddit was also included and immediately launched a legal challenge, which has yet to be resolved. The eSafety Commissioner also named ten platforms “unlikely” to fall under the legislation (such as Roblox, YouTube Kids and Discord). Yet such exclusions continue to raise concerns around potential harm. In February, the eSafety Commissioner put Roblox “on notice” following several international reports of grooming, including a man who was jailed for this offence in the UK. Was the launch of the ban successful? Since its launch on 10 December 2025, Australian media has been filled with stories of children remaining on social media platforms. There was a major spike in downloads of non-mainstream platforms, like Rednote, Yope, and Lemon8. Children reported exploiting the legislation’s known “loophole” by shifting their conversations to gaming and messaging apps, or by using VPNs to access existing accounts. Many under-16s who were initially locked out of their accounts also reported being able to reactivate or create new accounts immediately. There were also many reports of under-16s (and their parents) being surprised they were not asked to prove their age at all. As some companies use behaviour-based age assurance technologies, with age estimation based on the accounts people follow, or the content they like, a young person interacting with mature content could mistakenly be estimated to be 16 or older. Of those who were asked to assure their age by providing images of themselves, many children reported fooling the system with masks or by having older siblings (and even parents) sit in front of the camera. All these workarounds were known and widely reported, months ahead of the December launch. What does the evidence show? In March 2026, Australia’s eSafety Commission released its first detailed compliance report. It showed social media companies had taken “some steps” to restrict access to accounts. But the report also provided data from parents showing 70% of children retained active social media accounts. The report highlighted four key compliance issues. It found that messaging to under-16s on some platforms encouraged children to attempt age assurance, even where they declared themselves to be underage. Some platforms enabled under-16s to repeatedly attempt the same age-assurance method to ultimately pass age checks. Pathways for reporting age-restricted accounts have generally not been accessible and effective, particularly for parents. Finally, some platforms appear not to have done enough to prevent under-16s from having accounts. The report explained Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube were being investigated for “potential non-compliance”. While the results of these investigations are not yet known, enforcement decisions are expected by midyear. In the meantime, parents continue to be frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the legislation. A recent study provides further insights into the flaws and limitations of Australia’s social media restrictions. The study found 61% of under 16s reported “no or little change” in their social media use. Only 26% reported they had been “significantly affected” by the ban. However, of those who were restricted, 51% reported a significant drop in access to news coverage. These results raise significant concerns for young people’s future civic engagement. What can the UK learn from Australia’s experiment? The UK government will implement stricter measures than Australia, by banning under 18s from accessing romantic or sexual AI chatbots and including gaming sites in the restrictions. However, Australia has already introduced similar measures. The Australian government announced a new legislative rule so its definition of social media includes platforms with “addictive or otherwise harmful design features”. It also introduced new restrictions on search engines, AI tools, gaming platforms and other technologies to limit children’s access to pornography, extreme violent content and self-harm content. The success of these measures is not yet known. Australia will also introduce digital duty of care legislation later this year, which will place additional expectations on technology companies for preventing digital harms. With the UK’s claim that it will introduce a “sweeping ban” of all children under 16 on social media, a critical question to ask is how that will be achieved. Australia’s experience and several global studies show significant limitations in age assurance technologies, which have error rates of one to three years when attempting to estimate people’s ages. The UK could require technology companies to use age verification for all social media users – where everyone 16 and older would need to provided government-issued ID or other evidence to prove their age. But this approach brings significant privacy concerns. The UK’s experience with age verification for pornography sites saw a significant increase in the use of VPNs, which could also be used to circumvent social media restrictions. Digital spaces should be safe for people of all ages. But I don’t believe bans are the answer. Technology companies need to be held to account and required to block harmful content and build safety into their designs. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments