When Australia's ban on social media for children under 16 took effect on December 10, 2025, it was a world first — and other governments said they would be watching closely to see whether it worked. Six months on, several are no longer just watching.
What Australia did
Australia's law places the burden on the platforms, not on children or parents. Companies including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, X and Facebook are required to take "reasonable steps" to stop under-16s from holding accounts, or risk fines of up to about A$50 million, the eSafety Commissioner says. Notably, the ban allows no parental opt-in: a parent cannot consent to let a younger teenager keep an account.
Enforcement has not been seamless. Early reporting found that some young Australians were sidestepping the restriction using virtual private networks, which disguise a user's location and remain legal. Researchers have also questioned how accurately age-checking technology can sort teenagers from adults without collecting sensitive personal data.
The idea spreads
Despite those doubts, the model is being copied. Indonesia banned social media for under-16s on March 28, 2026, becoming the first Asian country to do so, and Malaysia followed on June 1, applying its restriction to platforms with more than eight million users. Britain's government has signaled it will move in the same direction, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer calling the issue a major moment for the country. New Zealand has said it will introduce legislation modeled on Australia's, and a French inquiry has recommended barring under-15s from social media and imposing an overnight curfew on use by older teenagers.
The United Kingdom already has a framework in place through its Online Safety Act, which requires platforms to verify or estimate users' ages for content deemed harmful to children, backed by fines of up to £18 million or 10 percent of global turnover. The European Union's Digital Services Act requires the largest platforms to assess and reduce risks to minors, though it stops short of a hard age limit.
The arguments on each side
Supporters of age bans point to research linking heavy adolescent social media use to higher rates of anxiety, depression and poor body image, and argue that platforms have shown little willingness to police themselves. For them, a clear legal line is the most effective lever available.
Critics — who do not divide neatly along political lines — raise three main objections. Robust age verification means collecting biometric or identity data, creating new privacy and surveillance risks. The technology is imperfect and can misjudge ages. And restricting minors' access raises free-expression questions, since many young people use these platforms to find community and take part in public life; advocates for LGBTQ+ youth, in particular, warn that a blanket ban can isolate the teenagers who most rely on online connection. The ease with which some Australian teenagers turned to VPNs has also fueled doubts about whether bans can be enforced at all.
A reckoning for the platforms
For the technology companies, the spread of these laws marks a shift from an era of self-regulation to one of hard legal mandates that differ country by country. Some firms have moved to comply — Meta began removing under-16 accounts in Australia ahead of the deadline — while continuing to argue, in public and in court, that governments risk overreaching. The coming year will test both propositions: whether the bans survive legal challenge, and whether the verification systems behind them can do what they promise.
