Four out of five Australian children still using social media despite ban, study finds amid fears over UK crackdown

Four in five Australian teenagers reported still accessing social media in the months after the ban on under-16s came into force, according to new research that threatens to cast doubt on the UK’s future restrictions.

A paper from Australia’s University of Newcastle said findings from a small study of the initial effects of the world-first ban suggested “there is insufficient evidence of significant early effects.”

There are plans to ban certain social media users under the age of 16 in the UK by spring 2027, following an announcement by Sir Keir Starmer earlier this month. But critics have warned that early evidence from Australia shows the ban has failed to keep children off social media platforms and risks pushing them into less regulated areas of the internet.

Australia introduced a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in December 2025.

Technology secretary Liz Kendall previously admitted the ban would not be a “complete silver bullet”, saying it was about providing clarity for parents and children and resetting expectations and social norms around young people’s use of social media.

He also insisted the UK’s use of “highly effective age verification measures” would make the ban stronger than the Australian system.

The study, published by the BMJ, acknowledged that the ban was still relatively new and suggested it could take a decade before its full impact is known.

It was stated that just before the restrictions were imposed in December, 408 children aged between 12 and 17 were asked about their social media habits and the survey was conducted again three months later.

Researchers reported that nearly 85 percent of respondents under the age of 16 still use banned social media platforms, mostly their own accounts.

Of those two-thirds, more than half reported encountering some form of age verification, mostly self-reported age or uploading a photo.

Almost a fifth said they used a fake account to get around restrictions, while around 10 percent said they used a private browser.

The article stated: “Findings suggest that the period immediately following the entry into force of the Act was characterized by limited enforcement, incomplete compliance and significant circumvention of social media restrictions.

“In this context, overall, we did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the Act has a significant early impact on social media use among adolescents under 16.”

Andy Burrows is chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, which was established in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who committed suicide in 2017 after viewing harmful content online. While Mr Burrows has repeatedly warned that a ban would likely be ineffective in keeping children off social media, he has failed to address what he described as “fundamental product safety issues”, such as the delivery of harmful and offensive content to people through personalized algorithms.

“This important research shows Australia’s social media ban has failed to keep under-16s off restricted platforms and has made no meaningful difference to how much time young people spend using high-risk sites,” he said.

“Keir Starmer announced a ban with no plan, and unless ministers have a coherent plan to urgently learn lessons, the UK ban will be similarly unraveled. Parents will be left with false hope and a false perception of their children’s safety.”

“The next prime minister should enter Downing Street with a convincing strategy to properly protect children from online harm, rather than relying on performance bans, which are unlikely to improve the mental health and wellbeing of our young people, as this research suggests.”

The researchers said that while “there is insufficient evidence of any early impact” from the ban, “the potential benefits of regulatory change take time to emerge and often require investment in accountability and education mechanisms to encourage compliance and participation.”

They described their findings as “important early information that can guide government improvements and future actions to promote health and well-being.”

Previously, survey commissioned by the Molly Rose Foundation suggested that around six in 10 children aged 12 to 15 who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to one or more active accounts in March this year.

In a survey of 1,050 Australians aged 12-15 by YouthInsight, seven in 10 children still using restricted sites said it was “easy” to get around the ban.

The foundation, which was established in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who committed suicide after viewing harmful content online in 2017, argued that the ban could fail to solve what it described as “fundamental product safety issues”, such as the presentation of harmful and offensive content to people through personalized algorithms.

But many campaigners, including bereaved parents, welcomed the ban, calling it “a turning point for the protection of children”.

Meanwhile, some major tech firms have voiced objections, saying a blanket ban on social media for under-16s could drive them into unregulated online spaces.

The proposed UK ban is expected to cover platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but not messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.