Australia's pioneering legislation restricting social media access for users under 16 years old appears to have made little headway in its opening months, according to fresh research that casts doubt on the law's immediate effectiveness. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which took effect in December 2025, was positioned as a global model for protecting young people from digital harms. However, a University of Newcastle study published in the British Medical Journal reveals that more than 85 per cent of adolescents aged 12 to 17 have continued using the restricted platforms despite the ban, suggesting that legislative intent has not translated into meaningful behavioral change among the target demographic.
The research, led by public health investigator Courtney Barnes at the University of Newcastle, tracked 408 teenagers before and three months following the law's implementation. The legislation compels major social media corporations—including TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat—to implement reasonable safeguards against accounts held by minors. Yet the findings paint a picture of widespread non-compliance, raising questions about whether platform accountability measures are sufficiently rigorous or whether teenage determination to stay connected simply outpaces regulatory architecture.
Most adolescents reported encountering some form of age verification mechanism, typically in the form of self-declared age statements or photo-based identity checks. These measures, however, proved insufficiently robust. Around 15 to 19 per cent of the study cohort admitted to using fake accounts to circumvent the restrictions, while between 9 and 29 per cent accessed platforms through accounts belonging to friends or family members. Additionally, approximately 11 per cent utilised private browsing modes or other technical workarounds to bypass age-gating systems. This constellation of evasion tactics demonstrates that adolescents possess both the knowledge and motivation to find alternative pathways to their preferred digital spaces.
The stability in overall social media consumption patterns across the cohort presents perhaps the most telling metric. Among younger teenagers aged 12 to 13, daily social media use remained essentially unchanged before and after the ban's introduction. Slightly older adolescents aged 14 to 15 showed only marginal reductions in usage frequency, while those over 16—who were legally permitted continued access—actually increased their daily engagement. This data suggests the legislation has functioned more as an inconvenience than a genuine barrier, reshaping access methods rather than reducing attachment to these platforms.
Barnes emphasised that the research represents one of the earliest evaluations of comprehensive age-restriction legislation globally, making its implications particularly significant as other nations calibrate their own regulatory responses. The study captures a crucial early snapshot of policy implementation, revealing structural weaknesses that policymakers in other jurisdictions would be wise to anticipate. Britain, France, Spain, Greece, Norway and Türkiye have all signalled intentions to advance similar legislation, effectively positioning Australia's experience as a cautionary case study in the international arena.
Professor Luke Wolfenden, a behavioural scientist and co-author of the research, highlighted that the long-term viability of such legislation hinges substantially on the rigour and consistency of age verification systems over extended periods. The platforms themselves face a delicate balance between user retention and regulatory compliance, creating structural incentives that may not align with the legislation's protective objectives. Without robust enforcement mechanisms and genuine consequences for non-compliance, these age-assurance systems risk becoming performative exercises that satisfy regulatory requirements without achieving substantive protection.
The research team acknowledges that comprehensive evaluation of the legislation's full impact may require years to complete, recognising that adolescent behaviour and platform adaptation patterns will likely evolve considerably beyond the three-month observation window. Longitudinal research extending over 12 to 24 months would provide considerably more insight into whether initial circumvention strategies represent a temporary adjustment phase or a permanent feature of teenage social media engagement. It remains unclear whether platforms will strengthen their enforcement mechanisms in response to pressure from regulators or public health advocates, or whether the current minimal approach will persist indefinitely.
For Malaysia and the broader Southeast Asian region, Australia's experience offers valuable perspective as policymakers grapple with whether similar age restrictions would be viable or desirable. The region's diverse regulatory environments, varying technical infrastructure capabilities, and different approaches to parental versus state-led oversight create distinct implementation challenges. Any attempt to replicate Australia's model would need to account for the demonstrated inadequacy of self-declared age verification and the ease with which technically proficient adolescents can access restricted services through alternative means.
The findings also raise fundamental questions about whether age-based restrictions represent the most effective policy lever for addressing legitimate concerns about youth mental health and digital wellbeing. The evidence suggests that regulatory frameworks relying primarily on platform-side enforcement may underestimate both the determination of adolescents to maintain their digital participation and the structural inadequacies of technological age-gating. Alternative or complementary approaches—such as enhanced media literacy programmes, transparency requirements regarding algorithmic content distribution, or restrictions on manipulative features targeting young users—might achieve substantive protection more effectively than categorical access bans.
As Australian regulators evaluate this preliminary data and international counterparts await further findings, the message appears increasingly clear: simply forbidding under-16s from accessing platforms without simultaneously addressing the technical and social mechanisms enabling circumvention risks creating legislation that satisfies political demands while delivering limited practical protection. The path forward likely requires not just restrictive legislation but comprehensive ecosystem reform encompassing platform design accountability, consistent enforcement mechanisms, and realistic acknowledgment of adolescent agency in navigating digital restrictions.
