There are still too many children on social media.
Six months after Australia became the first nation to ban children under 16 from social media, the government has acknowledged what the data already confirmed: the law exists more on paper than in practice. With seven in ten affected children still accessing banned platforms, Canberra has doubled maximum fines to $99 million and empowered its eSafety Commissioner to compel proof of compliance — a quiet admission that goodwill alone cannot move the largest technology companies on earth. The struggle is not merely Australian; it is a preview of what every nation will face when the ambitions of child protection collide with the architecture of the internet.
- Seven out of ten children who held social media accounts before December's ban still have access — making the law less a barrier than a formality.
- Five of the world's most powerful platforms — Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube — are now under formal investigation for doing, in the Communications Minister's words, 'the bare minimum to get by.'
- Australia is doubling maximum penalties to $99 million and arming its eSafety Commissioner with new powers to demand evidence, escalating from persuasion to compulsion.
- Prime Minister Albanese and his ministers are signaling frustration openly, suggesting the government no longer believes the platforms are acting in good faith.
- The UK has announced an identical under-16 ban effective spring 2027, and other nations are watching Australia's enforcement struggles as a cautionary map of what lies ahead.
When Australia banned under-16s from social media in December 2025, it was heralded as a landmark. Ten major platforms were suddenly off-limits to the country's youngest users. Within weeks, the cracks were visible.
Six months on, the government is conceding what parents and teachers already sensed: the ban is not holding. A BBC visit to a Sydney school in February found most students who used social media before the law still had access. The eSafety Commission's own investigation confirmed it — seventy percent of children with pre-ban accounts had found their way back. That is not a loophole. That is a ban in name only.
On Saturday, Canberra announced it would double maximum fines for non-compliant platforms from roughly $50 million to $99 million, and grant the eSafety Commissioner new authority to compel companies to demonstrate what they have actually done to enforce the restrictions. Five platforms — Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube — are now under formal investigation. Communications Minister Anika Wells accused tech companies of 'adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook,' while Prime Minister Albanese acknowledged bluntly that 'there are still too many children on social media.'
Australia is weighing further measures — overnight curfews and restrictions on infinite scrolling for under-18s — but these feel like additions to a foundation already under strain. The UK has announced an identical ban beginning spring 2027, and other nations are watching closely. What Australia's experience reveals is a structural problem: platforms will comply just enough to avoid the heaviest penalties, children will find workarounds, and regulators will remain perpetually one step behind. The escalation in fines and powers represents pressure, not resolution — and the gap between the law and lived reality shows no sign of closing.
When Australia banned children under 16 from social media in December 2025, the government declared victory. Ten major platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, and five others—were suddenly off-limits to the nation's youngest users. But within weeks, the cracks appeared. Investigators found that the ban was leaking everywhere.
Six months later, the Australian government is admitting what parents and teachers already knew: the law isn't working. On Saturday, it announced it would double the maximum penalty for platforms that ignore the ban, raising fines from roughly $50 million to $99 million. The eSafety Commissioner, the independent regulator tasked with enforcement, will now have the power to demand that companies prove what they've actually done to keep children off their services. It's a tacit acknowledgment that voluntary compliance has failed.
The numbers tell the story. When BBC reporters visited a Sydney school in February, they found that most students who used social media before the ban still had access. The eSafety Commission's own investigation was even more damning: seven out of every ten children who had an account before December still managed to get on the platforms. That's not a minor loophole. That's a ban in name only.
Five platforms are now under formal investigation for non-compliance: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. The government's statement on Saturday carried a note of frustration. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was "heartened by the shift in conversation" globally, but added bluntly: "There are still too many children on social media." His Communications Minister, Anika Wells, was sharper. She said tech companies were "adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by." The implication was clear—the platforms knew what they were supposed to do and chose not to do it.
What makes this moment significant is that Australia's struggle is now a global template. The UK announced in June that it would introduce an identical ban for under-16s, with enforcement beginning by spring 2027. Other countries are watching. The Australian experience suggests they should expect the same enforcement headaches: platforms will comply just enough to avoid the heaviest penalties, children will find workarounds, and regulators will be perpetually one step behind.
Australia is considering additional measures—an overnight curfew for social media use, restrictions on infinite scrolling for under-18s—but these feel like additions to a foundation that's already cracked. The doubling of fines and the expanded powers for the eSafety Commissioner represent an escalation, not a solution. The government is essentially saying: we tried asking nicely, now we're turning up the pressure. Whether that pressure will actually change behavior remains an open question. What's certain is that millions of Australian children continue to access platforms they're legally barred from using, and the gap between the law and reality shows no sign of closing.
Notable Quotes
There are still too many children on social media.— Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
Social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by.— Communications Minister Anika Wells
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the ban fail so quickly? It's only been six months.
Because the platforms have every incentive to keep users, and teenagers have every incentive to stay. A law is just words on paper until someone enforces it. The eSafety Commission didn't have the tools to actually verify compliance—they could only investigate after the fact.
But surely the platforms could just block Australian IP addresses or require ID verification?
They could, but that's expensive and it reduces their user base. The fine for non-compliance was $50 million—significant, but not catastrophic for a company like Meta or Google. The cost of compliance exceeded the cost of breaking the law.
So doubling the fine to $99 million will change that calculation?
Maybe. But the real shift is giving the eSafety Commissioner power to demand evidence. Now platforms have to prove they tried, not just claim they did. That's harder to fake.
What about the children themselves? How are they getting around the ban?
Age verification is the problem. Most platforms ask you to enter your birthdate, but there's no way to verify it's real. A 14-year-old can say they're 18. The platforms could require government ID, but that's a massive friction point—they'd lose users.
Is this just Australia's problem, or will the UK face the same thing?
The UK will face it worse, probably. Australia at least had the advantage of being first, of having public attention. By the time the UK law goes live in 2027, the platforms will have already learned what works and what doesn't from the Australian experience.
What does "doing the bare minimum" actually mean in practice?
It means the platforms added age gates, maybe improved their reporting tools, but didn't fundamentally change how they operate. They're complying with the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit.