Six months after Australia enacted the world’s first nationwide prohibition on social media for anyone under 16, the results paint a sobering picture. Platforms removed millions of accounts. Yet most teens found their way back. The experience raises sharp questions for Britain, which just announced plans for a similar ban. Evidence suggests the UK’s approach may repeat the same shortcomings. And the problems run deeper than virtual private networks.
TechRadar examined the data in a recent analysis. Around seven in 10 Australian children under 16 still maintain an active social media account, according to the country’s eSafety Commissioner in March 2026. A poll by the Molly Rose Foundation found three-fifths of 12- to 15-year-olds continue to access restricted platforms. Over half of participants reported the ban made no difference to their online habits. One in seven said they felt less safe.
Rowan Ferguson of the Molly Rose Foundation captured the core issue. “A lot of the evidence points to the fact that a ban is likely to quickly unravel, meaning a majority of children will be able to continue having accounts on platforms that we know are currently very unsafe.” The platforms themselves bear much of the blame. Many relied on minimal age checks that teens bypassed with repeated attempts or simple workarounds.
Survey responses revealed the methods. For major services like YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok, 60 to 64 percent of young users said the platforms took no action at all. Between 23 and 25 percent got around existing age checks. Only 4 to 5 percent turned to VPNs. The low reliance on such tools undercuts the common assumption that circumvention happens mainly through location masking. Instead, weak enforcement by the companies themselves allowed continued access.
But the numbers tell only part of the story. Parents across Australia report mixed outcomes. Some welcome quieter evenings at home. Others watch their children lose social connections or turn to unmonitored corners of the internet. Freya, a mother of two in Melbourne, described fewer arguments with her 12- and 14-year-olds. “It’s not just that their mum is old and doesn’t get it. It’s reduced arguments.” She called the policy worthwhile despite suspecting her daughter still uses Snapchat.
Boris, a father in Brisbane with children aged 11 and 13, struck a different tone. His kids get around the restrictions easily, especially on Snapchat. The 13-year-old feels left out when friends discuss trends. “I think it’s ridiculous that you can bring in this legislation that you can so easily get around,” he said. He feels mostly disappointed.
Elizabeth in Melbourne saw her 15-year-old twins lose access to Snapchat group chats, their primary way of staying in touch after school and on weekends. They interact less with friends now and feel excluded from overseas circles. The ban, she believes, delivered social isolation rather than safety. Edward, a single father in Canberra, found it made monitoring harder. His 14-year-old uses YouTube without signing in. Yet the boy thanked him for staying off TikTok after hearing disturbing stories from friends. “We’re talking pretty abysmal things,” Edward noted.
The New York Times reported on June 10, 2026, that the law has largely failed to keep young teens off platforms. Some parents, however, see potential benefits for the next wave of children who have not yet started accounts. Naomi Parrish in Australia held firm when her 12-year-old son Ethan begged for TikTok after receiving a smartphone. He wrote lists and letters. She cited the law each time. Other families focus on non-screen activities and peer networks that reinforce the restrictions.
The Guardian spoke with families on June 15, 2026, as Britain confirmed its own under-16 ban. Experiences vary. Some parents observe less doomscrolling and delayed first use among younger children. Others note persistent access through loopholes. Continued access rates remain high. Two-thirds of under-16s with prior accounts on Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok kept some form of access, per earlier Guardian reporting. The Albanese government claimed 4.7 million accounts were removed or restricted by mid-December 2025. Yet investigations by the eSafety Commissioner targeted Meta, TikTok, Google, Snapchat and YouTube for alleged insufficient efforts.
Platforms faced fines up to A$49.5 million for noncompliance. They must take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts. That includes updates to age verification. In practice, facial estimation, voice analysis and government ID checks proved easy to fool. A 15-year-old boy cleared Snapchat’s visual age check before the ban took full effect, as reported by The Guardian in late 2025. Teens simply tried again until the system let them through.
Chantal Joris, interim head of law and policy at ARTICLE 19, warned that bans reduce pressure on companies. “A ban will reduce the pressure on platforms to clean up their act and provide age-appropriate, rights-respecting digital environments for children, and for everyone else.” The result? A false sense of security for parents while algorithmic harms persist. Nearly half of girls in one survey saw harmful content related to suicide or self-harm in the past week. Algorithms drive much of it.
Britain’s plans echo Australia’s model but go further in some respects. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the under-16 prohibition, set to take effect around spring 2027. It builds on the Online Safety Act, which already demands highly effective age assurance for harmful content. Ofcom must assess methods including ID uploads, biometric scans and inference technologies. The regulator has acknowledged challenges. VPNs can bypass geo-based checks, though data from Australia shows they play a minor role.
Romain Digneaux of Proton put it plainly. “We’re already seeing serious security issues surfacing, such as in the Discord case. And we all must remember that age verification for children alone doesn’t exist. Age verification for children is age verification for everyone.” Mandatory checks for all users risk data breaches and privacy erosion on a massive scale. Laura Tyrylyte of NordVPN advocated a different path. “The most effective approach is likely to be a layered one that combines strong parental controls, improved digital literacy, responsible action by platforms, and privacy-preserving age assurance mechanisms at the device-level.”
Recent coverage reinforces the pattern. Time magazine noted on June 16, 2026, that the UK intends to follow Australia’s framework while claiming to go further. Details arrive in July. The BBC highlighted five big questions about the British ban just days ago. Enforcement remains central. So does the risk that teens migrate to less regulated spaces or simply lie about their age.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner reported 4.7 million accounts addressed by January 2026. Compliance updates in March showed platforms removed access but struggled with new registrations and repeat verification attempts. No notable drop in cyberbullying reports emerged. Some teens shifted to viewing content without accounts on YouTube or TikTok, where recommendation algorithms still operate. The law does not block logged-out browsing.
Critics argue the focus on bans distracts from root causes. Platforms design addictive feeds. They prioritize engagement over safety. Safety by design, stricter rules on harmful algorithms and better digital education could deliver more lasting change. Instead, governments bet on age gates that prove porous and invasive. The cybersecurity risks multiply when biometric data or identity documents enter the system. One breach exposes thousands of minors and adults alike.
Parents in Australia split on results. Some report calmer households and more outdoor time. Others see increased anxiety from social exclusion. The ban’s strongest impact may fall on preteens who never created profiles in the first place. For those already immersed, the restrictions often crumble within weeks. This reality confronts British policymakers as they finalize details. Nine in 10 UK parents support the idea in consultations. Yet Australian evidence shows support does not guarantee success.
Ofcom will publish a report by June 2026 on age assurance effectiveness. It must confront the same technical hurdles Australia faced. Inference-based age estimation lacks proven accuracy without invading privacy. Facial analysis raises bias concerns. Document verification demands secure storage that hackers target. And if the system becomes too cumbersome, users abandon it or seek alternatives. The cycle repeats.
So what comes next? Australia continues to investigate major platforms for potential violations. Britain eyes additional measures, including possible limits on VPN promotion to children. Neither country has solved the enforcement puzzle. The data from six months down under suggests bans alone deliver incomplete protection at best. They shift responsibility from product design to individual compliance. And they carry hidden costs in privacy, security and social development.
Industry insiders watching both experiments see a familiar tension. Governments want quick wins on child safety. Tech companies resist heavy-handed rules that raise compliance costs and user friction. Teens, resourceful as ever, adapt faster than regulators can respond. The coming UK rollout will test whether lessons from Australia lead to adjustments or simply replicate the same gaps. Early signals point to the latter. The ban unravels. The harms remain. And the search for genuine solutions continues.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication