Most Australian teens are still on social media three months into the under-16 ban

Most Australian teenagers are still using social media three months after the country’s world-first under-16 ban took effect, according to a new study from the eSafety Commissioner that undercuts one of the government’s flagship online-safety policies.

The share of teens using social media slipped only from 86% to 81%, the regulator found, even though platforms are now legally required to keep minors out, a gap that fits a law stronger on paper than in practice.

The research surveyed more than 4,000 children and families, comparing their habits before the ban with a three-month follow-up. It is the first large official read on whether the law, which began on 10 December 2025, is actually keeping under-16s off the platforms it targets.

The headline figure is modest movement. Social-media use among teenagers fell by five percentage points, while the share who own an account dropped from 52% to 42%, declines the regulator called real but well short of the ban’s intent.

The reason is enforcement, not appetite. Around half of the teens still using the apps said the platforms simply never checked their age, and others listed themselves as 16 or older or slipped past faulty verification systems.

eSafety put the failure squarely on the companies. “Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones,” it said, pointing to weak age assurance rather than teenage defiance.

Some platforms did see sharper drops. Statistically significant falls showed up on Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, though the study noted that use of Reddit actually ticked up as some teens migrated across.

The findings echo earlier warnings about the rollout. Independent testers had already found the ban stumbled at the first age check, with children waved through by the very systems meant to stop them.

The government is not backing down. Canberra has framed the law as a long-term shift, with a spokesperson saying that raising the minimum age is “a cultural change that will take time” rather than an overnight fix.

It has also sharpened its tools. In June, the government doubled the maximum penalties for non-compliance and strengthened eSafety’s information-gathering powers, arming the regulator for a tougher enforcement phase.

Five platforms are now under the microscope. eSafety is investigating Meta, Snapchat, TikTok, Google, and Reddit over whether their age checks amount to a breach of the law, with fines running into tens of millions of dollars.

That scrutiny follows the regulator’s finding that several of the biggest names were not complying with the ban, a stance that has already pushed the dispute toward possible court action.

The political stakes are high because the rest of the world is watching. Australia’s ban is the most sweeping attempt yet to bar minors from social media, and governments from the EU to Vietnam are weighing their own versions based on how it fares.

For now, the data cuts both ways. Ministers can point to a genuine drop in accounts and daily use, while critics can point to four in five teens still logging on as proof the ban is porous.

The uncomfortable middle ground is that both readings are true. The law has changed behaviour at the margins without delivering the clean exclusion it promised, setting up the next fight over whether tougher enforcement can close the gap.

What the study does settle is the direction of travel. Three months in, the ban is neither the failure its harshest critics claimed nor the success its architects wanted, and the burden has shifted onto the platforms to prove their age checks actually work.