The ban has barely dented how many children are on social media. More than 85% of the under-16s Australia set out to protect are still getting onto at least one restricted platform, half a year after it became the first country in the world to bar them from holding accounts. And most of them aren’t using clever tricks to get around it. Their accounts were simply never removed.
What the evidence shows
Since December 2025, platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit and X have been required to keep under-16s off. Millions of accounts were deleted in the first wave. But a University of Newcastle study found that three months in, the large majority of 12 to 15-year-olds were still active on at least one of those apps each week.
Of the children who kept their accounts, most had needed no workaround at all. The platforms had failed to find and remove them in the first place. Among those who did have to get around a check, roughly seven in ten said it was easy: a false date of birth, a borrowed account, or a photo that fooled the age-estimation tool. Time online did fall for some children, mostly the older ones. The result the policy was sold on, a generation logged off, has not arrived.
The age checks are the weak link
A separate round of testing published in early July found the trouble starts before any face scan or ID check. Testers ran active accounts across nine of the ten regulated platforms and were never once asked to prove their age. The first stage, meant to estimate whether a user is likely under 16 from their behaviour and push suspected minors towards a stronger check, did almost nothing.
That first gate is the whole system. A ban that platforms are trusted to enforce depends entirely on the moment a child tries to sign up. If that gate never triggers, the stronger checks behind it never get used, and a child sails straight through.
Australia’s answer: bigger fines
Rather than abandon the policy, Australia has doubled the maximum penalty for platforms that don’t take reasonable steps to keep under-16s out, and given its online safety regulator stronger powers to demand information from the companies. Enforcement targets the platforms, not children or parents. Whether the threat of larger fines actually changes how the companies build their age checks is the question the next six months will answer.
Why this matters wherever you are
Australia is the test case the rest of the world is reading closely. The UK has confirmed it will follow the same model, and go further, with its own under-16 restrictions due in 2027. Several other governments are weighing similar rules. One platform, Reddit, is challenging the Australian law in court, which could change how far any of these bans can reach.
Every country considering a ban is watching whether Australia’s works in practice, not just on paper. So far the honest answer is that passing the law was the easy part.
What this means for you right now
If your country brings in a ban, or a platform your child uses switches on an age check, don’t assume it means your child is off. A rule on the books and a child logged out are two different things, and the checks meant to connect them are, for now, easy to slip past.
The levers you have at home haven’t changed. Knowing which platforms your child actually uses, keeping devices out of bedrooms overnight, and setting up the parental controls you can see and test yourself still do more day to day than a national ban the platforms are struggling to enforce. If you were hoping a ban would make the decision for you, the evidence six months in says it can’t yet.
Australia’s numbers are the first real-world data any government has on whether these bans do what they promise, so they will shape what the UK and others do next. We are following it on the Wired Parents tracker.
Sources:
