Most Australian teens still online three months after under-16 ban

Australia's eSafety regulator released findings indicating that the country's pioneering social media ban for under-16s has faced significant implementation challenges. The study, published Friday, revealed that more than eight in ten Australian teenagers remain active on social media platforms despite the restrictions that took effect in December. The research attributed this widespread non-compliance primarily to technology companies' inability or unwillingness to establish robust age verification mechanisms.

The regulator's analysis compared usage patterns before and after the ban's introduction. Prior to the December 10 implementation date, approximately 86 percent of surveyed children aged 10 to 15 reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure had declined only marginally to above 81 percent. Daily usage rates showed similarly minimal change, dropping from roughly 60 percent to approximately 58 percent.

The study identified specific reasons why young users maintained access to restricted platforms. About half of the teenagers who retained their accounts reported that platforms had not conducted age verification checks. Others indicated their accounts were registered with ages of 16 or older, or that age-checking systems had incorrectly classified them as meeting the age requirement. The regulator noted that most children who had accounts before the ban commenced were able to either keep them or establish new ones.

Beyond social media usage, the research found minimal changes in other behavioral categories. Participation in sports, physical activity, arts, music, time spent with family and friends, and attendance at community events showed negligible variation between the pre-ban and post-ban periods.

The Australian government defended its policy despite the regulator's findings. Andrew Leigh, the assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, acknowledged the compliance challenges but argued the ban had already influenced national conversation. He compared the situation to minimum drinking age laws, noting that imperfect compliance does not invalidate the policy's value in reshaping public discourse and parental awareness.