Australia’s under-16 social media law took effect on December 10, 2025. Yet by March 2026, the country’s online safety regulator says major platforms still are not doing enough to keep younger children off restricted services.
That makes this a story about enforcement, not only legislation. The law is already shaping debate far beyond Australia, with the UK and other countries watching closely to see whether a hard rule can work in practice.
What Australia’s under-16 social media ban actually requires
Australia’s law requires covered platforms to take reasonable steps to stop children under 16 from opening or keeping accounts. Public debate often calls it a ban, but eSafety has also described it as a delay to access until users reach the minimum age.
The rule applies to 10 platforms named by the regulator: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Kick, and Twitch. Children and parents do not face penalties. The legal risk falls on companies, with major breaches carrying fines of up to about AUD $50 million.
Which platforms are covered, and why the rule matters
The list includes some of the world’s biggest youth-facing platforms, from Meta’s apps to TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and live-streaming services such as Twitch and Kick.
The policy goal is simple to state, even if it is harder to enforce. The government says it wants to reduce children’s exposure to harmful content, bullying, predators, and platform designs that can keep young users scrolling for hours. Earlier debate over Australia’s under-16 social media ban showed how sharply opinion split even before the rules took effect.
What “reasonable steps” means
The regulator is not demanding perfection. It is not saying that zero under-16s can ever get through. Instead, platforms must show they have real systems that work.
That means, in plain terms, companies should:
- block new under-16 sign-ups,
- remove existing underage accounts,
- stop repeat attempts after a child is flagged or rejected.
A weak check that children can retry over and over is unlikely to satisfy the test. The standard is about effective processes, not box-ticking.
What the watchdog found, and why enforcement is now the real test
eSafety says the law has already had some effect. In the first month, platforms restricted or removed 4.7 million accounts. Even so, many under-16s still appear to have access, which is why the regulator says enforcement remains the central problem.
The sharpest concerns so far center on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. According to Reuters reporting on the investigations, Australia is now moving beyond warnings and into formal scrutiny of whether those systems meet the law.
The main compliance gaps eSafety says platforms still need to fix
The regulator’s complaints are practical, not abstract. Some systems reportedly let children who had already declared they were under 16 try to prove they were older anyway. Others allowed repeated attempts at the same age check, which weakens the whole barrier.
eSafety also raised concerns that some platforms failed to stop new under-16 users from creating accounts in the first place. In some cases, parents and other users also lacked clear ways to report underage access. Those are not minor gaps. They go to the heart of whether the law can be enforced at scale.
Why are many teens still getting through the checks
Reports from schools and recent coverage suggest many teenagers still use restricted apps. Common workarounds described in public reporting include using fake photos, relying on someone else’s account, or retrying verification until a check passes.
That does not mean the law has failed. It does show how hard platform enforcement is when millions of users are involved. As ABC News reported on the five-platform probe, the question is no longer whether Australia passed a tough law. It is whether large services can apply it consistently.
Why the policy has strong support, but also serious criticism
Many parents support the law because it gives them backup. Saying no to a 12-year-old can feel like standing in front of a tide, and government backing for those changes changes that conversation.
Why many parents say the law helps them set boundaries
Supporters often describe the rule as a practical shield, not a perfect fix. If a child says, “Everyone has it,” parents can point to a national standard, not only a house rule. In that sense, the law works a bit like an age gate in other parts of life, even if online enforcement is far more complex.
Why critics worry about fairness, access, and unintended harm
Not all critics reject child safety goals. Their concern is that blanket exclusion may also cut some young people off from support, identity, and community. That concern is strongest for rural children, disabled teens, and LGBTQ+ youth, who may rely on online spaces more than others.
Others argue that education may be more effective than prohibition. Debate over social media regulations and free speech also overlaps with concerns about privacy, age checks, and state power. A recent analysis in The Conversation captured that wider tension, child protection has support, but enforceability and side effects remain disputed.
What happens next for platforms, parents, and other countries watching Australia
The next phase is likely to be less about headlines and more about evidence. No specific fines against named platforms have been publicly reported so far, but pressure is rising.
What platforms may need to prove in the months ahead
Companies will likely need to show stronger age checks, faster account removal, and working tools for parents and others to report underage users. The regulator’s test is clear enough: not perfection, but credible systems that meaningfully reduce access.
What readers should take away from this debate?
Australia has already pushed platforms to act at a scale few countries have attempted. Still, the harder part starts now. A law on paper is one thing; applying it fairly across global platforms is another.
That is why this case matters beyond Australia. If the model works, other governments may copy it. If it does not, the lesson may be that child safety needs more than hard age rules.
The real test is now enforcement. Australia has shown it can force the issue onto the agenda. The next few months will show whether platforms can prove compliance without creating new harms of their own.
