Australia’s social media ban for under-16s is so-far proving ineffective, researchers have warned – just over a week after Britain announced it would be following suit.
A study of more than 400 Australian teenagers has found that almost nine in 10 under-16s were still using social media platforms three months after the ban came into force.
Named the Social Media Minimum Age Act, the Australian law was introduced last December and inspired outgoing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to enforce it in the UK – a move allies claimed would be part of his political legacy following his departure from No 10.
The law was designed after research found young people were being increasingly exposed to harmful content including misogynistic and violent material, as well as promotions of suicide and eating disorders, and predatory behaviour.
After bringing forward the law to protect the ‘health and wellbeing’ of its children, the Australian government urged tech and social media companies to implement age-verification processes to prevent under-16s from accessing the banned sites.
But authors of the new study said teens are finding ways to bypass the ‘suboptimal’ checks by using fake accounts and private browsing modes.
The findings come just nine days after Sir Keir unveiled Britain’s own reforms, which have been dubbed as an ‘Australia plus’ package. But experts now say the results of the new research prove that the PM’s plan is ‘doomed to fail’.
Alan Woodward, professor of cybersecurity at the University of Surrey, said: ‘I really hope that governments, including the UK, take note of this latest evidence. Many have used the Australian approach as the example to follow in order to keep under-16s safe online, and what this suggests, along with other similar studies published since Australia introduced their ban, is that a simple ban will not keep children safe. Frankly, it was obvious it wouldn’t work which is why so many spoke out against it.’
Australia’s social media ban for under-16s is so-far proving ineffective, researchers have warned
The findings come just nine days after Sir Keir Starmer introduced Britain’s own reforms, which have been dubbed as an ‘Australia plus’ package
Sir Keir announced that the UK will follow Australia in raising the minimum age to 16 for social media sites like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, and Snapchat.
It will come into force next Spring and go even further than Australia, by taking action on gaming and live-streaming platforms so strangers will not be able to contact children. Encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp will not be included.
Announcing the plan in Downing Street last week, Sir Keir said it was clear that ‘a full ban is the right choice’ following a Government consultation on possible measures.
The consultation, which ran from March to May, found that nine in 10 parents backed the ban, as well as two-thirds of young people. The Government said the rule would protect children from platforms that ‘create the most harm’.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed Sir Keir’s announcement of a social media ban for under-16s, although she said it is ‘not perfect’.
Ms Badenoch added: ‘If the imperfect social media ban is his legacy, I think that says a lot about the Prime Minister.’
The new study, led by scientists from the University of Newcastle in New South Wales and published in the BMJ, surveyed 408 young people aged between 12 and 17.
Researchers asked participants about their social media use, as well as their experiences with age-verification checks and attempts to get round them.
The team found that when surveyed, 86 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds and 89 per cent of 14 to 15-year-olds reported using at least one banned platform in the previous week, despite the legislation being in force.
Around two-thirds of participants also reported encountering age-verification measures, while the rest said they had encountered no such requirements.
The most common check involved simply asking users to provide their age, while up to a quarter said they were asked to upload a photograph to verify their identity.
While more than half of participants accessed banned platforms through their own accounts, others reported using workarounds including fake accounts, someone else’s account or private browsing modes designed to limit tracking.
Researchers say this suggests platforms are not successfully implementing the necessary deterrents to teens, rather than the law itself being an outright failure.
Authors also acknowledged that their study has limitations, including that it was a small sample size.
However, they believe their findings show that the enforcement has not made any meaningful difference months after its implementation.
They wrote: ‘Implementation of age assurance measures by social media platforms is suboptimal, and evidence suggests that these are being circumvented by adolescents.
‘The effects of the Social Media Minimum Age Act on adolescents’ social media use seem to be limited although uncertain.
‘The impacts of the Act may be enhanced and accrue over time; evaluation in the longer term is needed to assess this.’
Experts not involved in the study say the findings show that teens are too easily finding ways round the law.
Professor Woodward said it was ‘troubling’ that the report found children using private, untraceable methods to use social media.
He said this means ‘children are being exposed to not just the social media sites most of us use but potentially much darker content’.
He continued: ‘This study is evidence not just that simple bans will be circumvented but that simplistic fixes fail the children, whose safety has to be the primary objective. Government policy has to be evidence based, not merely sentiment.
‘Concern does not equal evidence. Simplistic fixes are doomed to fail, and that means failing to protect the children.’
Woodward added that tackling the issue is required, but said the results of the new study ‘demonstrates that it has to be properly thought through’.
He said: ‘We need to understand how children are harmed and tackle the specific causes. It may be that policing the platforms and their algorithms is part of the answer; it may be that modifying social media behaviour towards different age ranges is also part of the answer; but what this study shows is that a blanket ban for under 16s is not the answer.’
Dr Amrit Kaur Purba, a social epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added: ‘Australia’s experience shows that legislating a restriction is not the same as enforcing one: when age assurance relied on self-declared age, most adolescents continued to access restricted platforms.’
Other experts urged more caution around the findings.
Dennis Ougrin, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry and global mental health at Queen Mary University of London, said the small sample size and follow-up time required consideration.
But, Ougrin claimed the study provides ‘useful early evidence’ around the challenges of implementation that should ‘provide an important early reality check for policymakers’.
Matt Williams, a professor of criminology at Cardiff University, added that ‘this should not be read as proof that age-based restrictions cannot work’.
He said: ‘The headline here is not that the policy has succeeded or failed, but that early evidence from Australia shows how difficult it is to translate a legal restriction into meaningful changes in young people’s online behaviour.’
