CANBERRA — Australia’s social media restrictions came into effect in December 2025, triggering a domino effect across the globe as countries in Europe and Asia debated or adopted similar rules. Together these legal reforms form the biggest regulatory and cultural overhaul faced by tech platforms since the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in 2018.
Here’s how things are playing out in Australia — and some of the biggest questions surrounding the restrictions’ implementation.
What is the political background to the Australian law?
Australia’s then-Opposition Leader Peter Dutton pledged in June 2024 to raise the social media access age to 16 within 100 days of becoming prime minister.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, pressured to match the commitment, adopted the policy in November 2024 and rushed a bill through Parliament later that month.
This happened against a backdrop of advocacy by parts of the media, public figures and parents whose children had suffered or died by suicide after social media bullying.
The Senate committee tasked with examining the legislation received roughly 15,000 submissions.
The Greens and most crossbench members of parliament and senators opposed the bill, calling for more time and scrutiny.
What problems did the law attempt to tackle?
Public debate around the law focused on addictive platform design and the risks of those design choices leading to negative mental health effects on developing minds.
The government framed the law as a response to problematic or compulsive platform use, cyber bullying, harmful content, unwanted adult contact and mental health risks.
While extensive research supports concern about adolescent vulnerability, it does not establish that an age ban alone will reduce mental health problems.
Why is the focus on banning accounts for under-16s?
The Australian government says that being logged into an account increases the likelihood that children will be exposed to “negative, upsetting or manipulative content.”
It considers the legislation to be a “delay” rather than a “ban” on accessing social media, stressing that it gives young people the time and space to develop skills such as digital literacy, impulse control and resilience before being inundated with challenging content online.
What the law does:
It makes clear that under-16s are not able to give consent to share their data via a platform’s terms of service, and designates social media platforms as age-restricted services.
This makes it illegal for prescribed platforms to offer accounts to Australians aged under 16 and requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent Australian children under 16 from holding accounts.
The law places legal responsibility on platforms, not children or parents, and it currently applies to Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube.
They can use a range of age assurance methods, such as analyzing users’ biological or behavioral features, using information other than date of birth to infer an individual’s age.
What the law doesn’t do:
Subject children, their parents or carers to penalties.
Ban under 16s from accessing public content on social media platforms.
Cover every online service. Messaging, education, health, professional networking and many gaming services are excluded.
Enforce a single type of age assurance. Instead platforms are expected to demonstrate to the Australian regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, that they’ve taken reasonable steps to prevent children from opening accounts. While the platform may rely on government-issued identification, they’re not allowed to force Australians to use these.
Make it an offense for a child to use a VPN or attempt to access a platform.
Popular services such as Discord, Messenger, WhatsApp, Roblox, Steam and Google Classroom were among services eSafety identified as outside the restrictions. The classification can change, as the purpose of a platform evolves.
What impact was the law expected to have?
Albanese has said he wants to keep young Australians safe, reduce screen time, and encourage better educational outcomes, behaviour and social interaction. The government has not set explicit targets for reducing screen time, account ownership or mental health symptoms.
Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner whose term ends in 2027, said meaningful effects may take years and could ultimately be generational.
eSafety launched a study of the impacts in 2025 in partnership with Stanford University’s Social Media Lab and 11 academic advisers. It will follow more than 4,000 children and families for over two years and publish the results online.
Where did the Australian government cut corners?
Social media platforms criticized the Australian government for rushing to pass the legislation in 2024, before its regulator had completed a trial into the age assurance technologies that would underpin it.
What are the initial impacts?
There is a clear decline in account ownership among under-16s, but also substantial continued access. In an early parent survey, 31 percent said their child still had at least one social media account after implementation, compared with 49 percent before it.
In the months after the ban, at least 4.7 million accounts were removed, deactivated or restricted.
TIME reported that data from the parental control company Qustodio showed that after the age minimum went into effect, Snapchat monthly usage dropped roughly 40 percent among 13- to 15-year-olds, while YouTube usage dropped just 3 percent. YouTube does not require a user to have an account, so many YouTube users access content without an account.
After an early compliance report found a “substantial proportion” of children still held social media accounts, the Australian government sought to increase penalties for noncompliance and introduce stronger powers for the eSafety Commissioner.
Amendments to the legislation are being considered at the time of publication.
Has the law affected VPN uptake?
A University of Newcastle study of 408 teenagers aged between 12 and 16 found that VPNs were rarely relied upon to circumvent age verification.
The study found participants were most often being asked to self-declare their age as a means of verification.
Are other governments following suit?
Yes, but approaches have varied. Jurisdictions that have taken steps to restrict social media access include Brazil, Indonesia, Canada, Malaysia, the UAE, France, Spain, the U.K. and the EU.
What do parents say about the impacts?
In a YouGov survey of just over 1,000 Australian adults, conducted from Jan. 12-14, 2026, parents polled reported some early positive feedback.
This included 38 percent of them finding their children to be more present and engaged during interactions, with the same proportion noticing their relationships had improved.
However, some parents also reported negative impacts, including 25 percent noticing reduced social connection, creativity, or peer support online.
Media reporting has also captured this range of views.
What’s the quiet bit officials aren’t saying out loud?
Keeping teenagers off social media, when they have already been exposed to such platforms from a young age, is an uphill battle. The biggest beneficiaries of the policy are likely to be younger children, who have the chance to develop different habits.
What are the risks of kids handing over sensitive data to tech companies?
Australia says privacy was a central consideration in the implementation of its restrictions, with platforms still required to comply with the Privacy Act.
That legislation restricts how information is collected, used and disclosed.
Is there any evidence of deeper culture change occurring?
A spokesperson for eSafety said its early findings suggest a shift in expectations around social media use.
“Some children are less likely than before the commencement of the social media minimum age restrictions to believe that most children their age use social media, or that children without social media accounts are missing out,” eSafety said.
“Some parents also report less perceived pressure to allow social media use simply because other families do.”
Is anything being done to help teens keep access to important information they were getting on platforms?
Australia’s regulator points children to support networks if they’re feeling isolated, but ultimately its stance is that children under 16 can still access the internet generally.
“Young people can continue to access publicly available social media content that does not require an account, including searching for and viewing information where platforms permit logged-out access,” the spokesperson said.
“Many standalone messaging, gaming, education and health services are also not currently covered by the social media age restrictions.”