Six months ago, Australia was triumphant. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024[8]Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024“The law was passed by Parliament on November 28-29, 2024, took effect December 10, 2025; Reddit launched a High Court challenge; fines up to A$49.5 million for systemic non-compliance” had cleared both chambers of Parliament in just eight days and took effect on Dec. 10, 2025, making Australia the first nation in the world to prohibit children under 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese celebrated the achievement at every opportunity, telling Parliament on June 25, 2026, that 16 countries were now pursuing similar approaches[5]Albanese plans further tightening of under-16 restrictions“Albanese told Parliament 'We are going to need to do more' on June 25, 2026; a government source confirmed a 'significant' announcement was expected within days” inspired by Australia's lead.
The problem? The law is not working. Three separate bodies of research — including peer-reviewed science, an economics working paper from the University of Chicago, and data from the government's own regulator — say so. The official responsible for enforcing the ban said so publicly before any of those studies appeared. And rather than acknowledge what the evidence shows, Albanese is calling for yet more legislation.
What Does the Evidence Actually Show?
A study led by University of Newcastle public health researcher Courtney Barnes and published in the British Medical Journal on June 24, 2026[2]Little evidence that Australia's under-16 social media restrictions have curbed use among adolescents“BMJ study by Courtney Barnes et al. found little evidence of immediate substantive reductions in social media use among under-16s after Australia's ban took effect December 2025”, tracked 408 adolescents aged 12 to 16 in New South Wales — surveying them just before the December 2025 ban and again three months later. More than 85 per cent of under-16s were still using restricted platforms including TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram. The researchers found "little evidence of immediate substantive reductions" in social media use among under-16s[12]Australia teen social media ban has little impact - study“Researchers wrote: 'We found insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the Act had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16'” and no meaningful difference in platform use between those below and above the age cut-off.
A separate working paper from the University of Chicago's Becker Friedman Institute, by economists including Leonardo Bursztyn, Angela Duckworth and Cass Sunstein, surveyed 507 Australian teenagers aged 14 to 18 in March and April 2026[3]Why Bans Fail: Tipping Points and Australia's Social Media Ban“Survey of 507 Australian teenagers found only approximately 27% of banned 14-15 year-olds comply; 75% found circumvention easy; compliance is more likely to diminish than rise” and found even starker results. Only approximately 27 per cent of banned 14- to 15-year-olds were complying. Most non-compliers cited social reasons — friends remaining on the platforms and fear of missing out. Teens said they would need roughly three-quarters of peers to stop using social media before they would stop themselves, far above the 27 per cent currently complying. "Compliance is more likely to diminish than to rise," the authors concluded[3]Why Bans Fail: Tipping Points and Australia's Social Media Ban“Survey of 507 Australian teenagers found only approximately 27% of banned 14-15 year-olds comply; 75% found circumvention easy; compliance is more likely to diminish than rise” absent a fundamental change in enforcement.
The government's own regulator, eSafety, published a compliance update in March 2026 reporting that five platforms — Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube — had been flagged for age-check compliance issues[6]Social media age restrictions | eSafety Commissioner“eSafety published March 2026 compliance update flagging five platforms for age-check compliance issues and moving to enforcement stance after 3 months of the law being in force” and that the office was moving from "compliance monitoring to an enforcement stance." That same update noted that while over 310,000 additional accounts had been removed since January, "a substantial number" of children under 16 still retained accounts[7]Australia's new social media law beginning to have an impact“eSafety March 31, 2026 compliance report noted over 310,000 accounts removed, but a 'substantial number' of children under 16 still retained accounts; Facebook and TikTok under investigation”.
The ban by the numbers — six months in
- 85%+ of under-16s still using restricted platforms (BMJ study, June 2026)
- 27% of banned 14–15-year-olds complying (University of Chicago working paper, March–April 2026)
- 310,000+ additional accounts removed since January 2026 (eSafety Commissioner, March 2026)
- A$49.5 million — maximum fine for platforms; zero fines issued as of June 2026
- Eight days — time Parliament took to pass the law in November 2024
- 95% — share of 13- to 15-year-olds with at least one social media account before the ban
Did Canberra Know Enforcement Was Broken Before the Studies Landed?
The most damning detail is not the academic research. It is what the government's own watchdog said in public before that research appeared.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant told interviewers that "I don't have potent powers" and "a regulator is only as good as the tools and the resources that they're given."[1]Australia plans to strengthen laws banning children from social media“Albanese's June 25-26 statements, Lisa Given's expert commentary on the ban failing, eSafety Commissioner Inman Grant's 'I don't have potent powers' admission reported by SMH, and eSafety's April court action plans” Those remarks, reported by the Sydney Morning Herald in early June 2026, predated the BMJ publication by weeks. In April, Inman Grant had said she was considering court action against five major platforms — but no such action had been filed by June 26.
"Frankly, it was obvious it wouldn't work, which is why so many spoke out against it. Government policy has to be evidence-based, not merely sentiment. Concern does not equal evidence."
Prof. Alan Woodward, Professor of Cybersecurity, University of Surrey
Prof. Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey, responding to the BMJ study, captured the expert consensus: "Frankly, it was obvious it wouldn't work, which is why so many spoke out against it. Government policy has to be evidence-based, not merely sentiment."[4]Expert reaction to study assessing early effects of Australia's Social Media Minimum Age Act“Prof Alan Woodward: 'Frankly, it was obvious it wouldn't work which is why so many spoke out against it. Government policy has to be evidence-based, not merely sentiment.'”
Lisa Given, an information sciences expert at RMIT University, was direct: "I do think it's failing. Many kids in the media have reported that they also think that this is really a failed exercise."[1]Australia plans to strengthen laws banning children from social media“Albanese's June 25-26 statements, Lisa Given's expert commentary on the ban failing, eSafety Commissioner Inman Grant's 'I don't have potent powers' admission reported by SMH, and eSafety's April court action plans” She added that courts would still need to define what "reasonable steps" means under the law — an admission that the legislation's key compliance test remains judicially undefined more than six months after commencement.
How Are Children Getting Around the Ban — And Why It Was Predictable
Before the ban, 95 per cent of Australian teenagers aged 13 to 15 already had at least one social media account[10]What to Know About Australia's Social Media Ban for Kids Under 16“Before the ban, 95% of Australian teens aged 13-15 had at least one social media account; 80% of children aged 8-12 used at least one social media platform in 2024” — a saturation figure that should have prompted harder questions about enforcement before Parliament rushed the bill through in eight days.
The University of Chicago survey found 75 per cent of banned teens described circumvention as easy or very easy[3]Why Bans Fail: Tipping Points and Australia's Social Media Ban“Survey of 507 Australian teenagers found only approximately 27% of banned 14-15 year-olds comply; 75% found circumvention easy; compliance is more likely to diminish than rise”. The most common method required no technical sophistication: two-thirds of underage users simply declared they were older than 16 when signing up[9]Australia's teen social media ban fails, 85% still online“Two-thirds of underage users declared themselves older than 16 when signing up; platforms took those declarations at face value”, and platforms accepted those self-declarations at face value. The law's enforcement mechanism — requiring platforms to take "reasonable steps" — was vague enough to allow that outcome.
The University of Chicago researchers also identified a troubling social dynamic: unlike cigarette cessation among young adults, where well-connected individuals tend to quit together, teens who comply with the ban are perceived by peers as less popular than those who do not[3]Why Bans Fail: Tipping Points and Australia's Social Media Ban“Survey of 507 Australian teenagers found only approximately 27% of banned 14-15 year-olds comply; 75% found circumvention easy; compliance is more likely to diminish than rise”. The most socially influential teenagers are therefore the most likely to remain on platforms — meaning the norms the law was supposed to shift are, if anything, hardening in the wrong direction.
Meanwhile, Reddit has launched a High Court challenge to the law[8]Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024“The law was passed by Parliament on November 28-29, 2024, took effect December 10, 2025; Reddit launched a High Court challenge; fines up to A$49.5 million for systemic non-compliance”, arguing it restricts young people's political discourse, with preliminary hearings expected as early as 2027.
What Is Albanese Actually Doing About It?
Rather than acknowledge that the enforcement design of the existing law was flawed — that placing age-checking obligations on commercially incentivised platforms while giving the regulator inadequate tools was always going to produce poor outcomes — Albanese stood in Parliament on June 25 and promised more laws.
"We need to be conscious as a parliament about this. We need to be courageous about this," Albanese told Parliament on June 25, 2026[5]Albanese plans further tightening of under-16 restrictions“Albanese told Parliament 'We are going to need to do more' on June 25, 2026; a government source confirmed a 'significant' announcement was expected within days”. He told ABC Radio the next morning that the government was asking "are the laws as strong as possible?" and whether the eSafety Commissioner had "every power at her disposal"[1]Australia plans to strengthen laws banning children from social media“Albanese's June 25-26 statements, Lisa Given's expert commentary on the ban failing, eSafety Commissioner Inman Grant's 'I don't have potent powers' admission reported by SMH, and eSafety's April court action plans” — questions that, by any reasonable assessment, should have been answered before the original bill was drafted.
The plan is to proceed with a "digital duty of care" framework holding platforms accountable for foreseeable harms from content and algorithms. A government source confirmed a "significant" announcement was expected within days[5]Albanese plans further tightening of under-16 restrictions“Albanese told Parliament 'We are going to need to do more' on June 25, 2026; a government source confirmed a 'significant' announcement was expected within days”.
That framework may ultimately prove sensible — digital duty-of-care approaches have been recommended by experts for years as more targeted than blanket age bans. But the sequencing reveals the pattern: rush a law through in eight days on political sentiment, celebrate it globally as a world-first triumph, and when the evidence of failure becomes undeniable, add another law on top — without publicly accounting for why the first one failed or why the same government should be trusted to design a better one.
Why the Global Stakes Make This More Than an Australian Problem
None of this would matter as much if Australia's experiment were self-contained. It isn't. Albanese has publicly claimed 16 countries are now pursuing similar approaches[5]Albanese plans further tightening of under-16 restrictions“Albanese told Parliament 'We are going to need to do more' on June 25, 2026; a government source confirmed a 'significant' announcement was expected within days” modelled on Australia's ban — the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia among them.
As Prof. Woodward warned after the BMJ study's release, "many have used the Australian approach as the example to follow... what this suggests, along with other similar studies published since Australia introduced their ban, is that a simple ban will not keep children safe."
Children's online safety is a serious problem that deserves serious policy. A law that lets platforms verify age by asking children to tick a box — and nothing more — is not serious policy. Neither is a government's response to a demonstrably failing law being more legislation, more press conferences about courage, and not a word of accountability for the enforcement design that was broken from the start.