Australia's landmark legislation restricting social media access for children under 16 appears to be struggling with enforcement, according to fresh research that has significant implications for other nations considering similar rules. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which took effect in December 2025, mandates that major platforms including TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat implement reasonable measures to prevent underage users from creating accounts. Yet within just three months of the law coming into force, researchers at Australia's University of Newcastle discovered that the restrictions have proven far less effective than policymakers envisioned, casting doubt on the viability of such blanket bans.
The UON-led investigation tracked 408 adolescents aged 12 to 17 across a critical period spanning before and after the legislation's introduction, providing what researchers describe as an important early snapshot of how the policy functions in practice. The findings, published in the British Medical Journal, paint a sobering picture: more than 85 per cent of teenagers under 16 have continued accessing the restricted platforms despite the ban, fundamentally undermining the law's core objective. This extraordinarily high persistence rate suggests that either the technology platforms are not implementing age assurance systems rigorously enough, or that teenagers have quickly adapted their behaviour to circumvent the controls in ways that regulators did not fully anticipate.
The mechanisms by which young Australians are bypassing the restrictions reveal the sophistication of modern teenagers' digital literacy. Around two-thirds of the surveyed adolescents reported encountering some form of age verification during the three-month evaluation window, predominantly through self-declared age statements or photo-based identity checks. However, these seemingly basic hurdles have proven remarkably easy to overcome. Approximately 15 to 19 per cent of respondents admitted to creating fake accounts with false biographical information, while between 9 and 29 per cent reported accessing platforms through accounts registered to friends or family members. A smaller but still notable group, up to 11 per cent, utilized private browsing modes or similar technical workarounds to evade detection by platform algorithms and age assurance systems.
What makes these findings particularly noteworthy is the lack of meaningful change in overall usage patterns following the ban's introduction. Daily social media consumption among 12 to 13-year-olds remained essentially stable, suggesting that the youngest and presumably most vulnerable users experienced no reduction in screen time despite the legislative intervention. For teenagers aged 14 to 15, usage declined only marginally, implying that the law has barely registered as a behavioural constraint. Conversely, usage actually increased among those over 16, the cohort that the legislation explicitly permits to access these platforms. This divergence raises questions about whether the ban is addressing its intended target or merely pushing younger users toward less visible and potentially less regulated alternative services.
Court Barnes, the lead investigator at UON's public health research division, has emphasized that this represents one of the first rigorous evaluations of age restriction legislation of this magnitude. The importance of this research extends well beyond Australia's borders, as the country's experiment has become a global reference point for policymakers wrestling with similar concerns about youth digital wellbeing. Britain, France, Spain, Greece, Norway and Türkiye have all begun advancing comparable legislation, partly emboldened by Australia's decision to move first. These nations are now watching the Australian data with considerable interest, recognizing that the success or failure of the Antipodean model will likely influence their own implementation strategies and legislative frameworks.
The efficacy of age assurance technology emerges as a central challenge revealed by the research. Self-declared age verification, which relies entirely on users' honesty, has proven to be almost meaningless as a control mechanism. Photo-based identity checks, while theoretically more robust, appear to lack the sophistication needed to distinguish between a teenager and their older sibling or a friend providing photographic documentation. Neither approach appears sufficiently rigorous to significantly deter motivated young users, particularly in a society where digital proficiency is near-universal and peer networks can collectively devise workarounds. Professor Luke Wolfenden, a behavioural scientist at UON and co-author of the study, has cautioned that the legislation's ultimate effectiveness will hinge on how resolutely and uniformly platforms enforce their age assurance protocols in the coming years.
The implications for Southeast Asian nations, including Malaysia, warrant consideration. The region has younger, rapidly growing digital populations with high smartphone penetration but comparatively less stringent data privacy frameworks than Australia. Any future Malaysian discussion of similar age restrictions would need to grapple with the enforcement challenges that Australia has already encountered. The sophisticated circumvention strategies identified in the Australian study—fake accounts, shared access, and technical workarounds—would likely proliferate even more readily in jurisdictions with fewer resources for regulatory oversight. Malaysian policymakers would benefit from understanding that prohibitive legislation alone, without simultaneous investment in technology infrastructure and consistent platform accountability, may produce the appearance of protection without delivering measurable outcomes.
Researchers involved in the UON study have been cautious about drawing premature conclusions, acknowledging that the full societal impact of the legislation may take years to materialize properly. The three-month evaluation window, while revealing important early patterns, cannot capture longer-term behavioural adjustments or the cumulative effects of sustained regulatory enforcement. The research team has identified the need for continued longitudinal evaluation to determine whether platforms will eventually tighten their age assurance systems in response to regulatory scrutiny, or whether the current enforcement regime will persist as a largely symbolic gesture.
For stakeholders in Malaysia and across the region considering comparable measures, the Australian experience offers a cautionary lesson about the gap between legislative intention and practical implementation. While protecting young people from potentially harmful online environments remains a legitimate policy objective, blanket age bans appear insufficient without accompanying investments in technology, platform accountability mechanisms, and digital literacy education. The study suggests that a multi-faceted approach addressing both supply-side platform regulation and demand-side user education may prove more effective than age restrictions alone. As Australia continues its experiment, global observers are likely to be watching closely for evidence that the legislation's impact strengthens over time, or whether teenage ingenuity and platform inconsistency render the ban perpetually ineffective.
