The Under-16 Social Media Ban Is Nine Months Old. Here Is What the Numbers Actually Say, and What They Cannot

Are age restrictions helping children? Nine months after the law took effect, the honest answer is: a bit, measurably, and not in the way either side predicted.

The eSafety Commissioner's first evaluation report, published on 31 July 2026, shows a real decline in under-16 account holding and a real decline in children feeling they are missing out. It also shows that most children who had accounts before the ban still have one. Both facts are true at once, and any article that gives you only one of them is selling something.

The short answer

• The proportion of under-16s holding a social media account fell from 52.4 per cent to 42.1 per cent at the three-month follow-up.
• The proportion of under-16s who reported using a social media platform fell from 85.9 per cent to 81.5 per cent.
• Children reporting that they felt they were missing out fell from 43.3 per cent to 36.3 per cent, a statistically significant change.
• "Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones."
• Platforms reported restricting access to 4.7 million under-16 accounts across Australia in the first weeks.
• The law obliges platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s holding accounts. There is no penalty on children or parents.

How the law works

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024. The core obligation took effect on 10 December 2025. From that date, in eSafety's words, "age-restricted social media platforms need to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account."

Three features of the design matter for how success should be judged.

First, the duty sits on the platform, not the child or the parent. Section 63D requires a provider of an age-restricted platform to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts. The maximum civil penalty in the Act is 30,000 penalty units, a figure that runs to tens of millions of dollars for a corporation.

Second, the Act does not require identity documents. Platforms must not collect government-issued identification as the only way to verify age, and must offer a reasonable alternative.

Third, the law audits itself. Section 239B requires the Minister to commission an independent review of the scheme, including the adequacy of its privacy protections, within two years of the obligation taking effect.

Which platforms are covered

eSafety's published view is that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit are age-restricted platforms. Several smaller services have self-assessed as age-restricted, including Bluesky, Lemon8, Wizz and Yubo. Services eSafety says do not currently meet the criteria include Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam, WhatsApp and YouTube Kids. In eSafety's summary, "most standalone gaming and messaging apps, as well as many services that support health and education, are not affected".

That list is the first thing to understand about the evaluation numbers. Children moving from Instagram to a messaging app or a gaming platform are complying with the law, not evading it. Whether that is better for them is a different question.

What the evaluation actually measured

The report is titled "Early days, early insights: Understanding experiences of social media age restrictions at the three-month follow-up". It draws on a longitudinal study following over 4,000 children and families over two years, with findings to be released progressively across 2026, 2027 and 2028.

The headline movements are modest but real: account holding down about ten percentage points, reported use down about four, and a significant drop in the proportion of children who feel they are missing out.

The finding that will define the next phase of the debate is the one about retention. Most children who had accounts before 10 December 2025 kept them or made new ones. The 4.7 million restricted accounts reported by platforms in January 2026 and the persistence of use are not contradictory. Platforms removed a very large number of accounts, and a very large number of children are still there.

Since then eSafety has reportedly opened compliance investigations into several major platforms. "Reasonable steps" is the phrase the whole scheme hangs on, and its meaning will be settled by enforcement, not by the second reading speech.

How should success actually be measured?

Here is the problem with the current argument. Supporters point to the fall in account holding. Critics point to the persistence of use. Both are measuring the mechanism. Neither is measuring the outcome.

The purpose of the law was never to reduce the number of accounts. It was to reduce harm to children. That means the measures that matter are the ones eSafety's longitudinal study is designed to capture over time: sleep, wellbeing, exposure to harmful content, contact from strangers, bullying, and whether children who leave a platform find something better or something worse.

Five tests worth applying before anyone declares victory or failure:

1. Wellbeing, not accounts. Does the two-year data show improvements in sleep, mood and reported harm among under-16s, compared with the trajectory before the law?
2. Displacement. Where did the children who left go? A shift to unregulated or less moderated services is a cost, not a win.
3. Enforcement. What did "reasonable steps" turn out to mean when eSafety tested it against a platform in a formal investigation?
4. Privacy. Did age assurance expand data collection on all Australians, and did the section 239B review find the safeguards adequate?
5. Equity. Did the law land differently on children in regional, low-income, disabled or culturally diverse households, who may rely on these platforms for connection?

The July report is honest about being early. The "missing out" finding is the most interesting early signal, because it hints that the social cost of not being on a platform falls when nobody else your age is supposed to be there either. If that holds, it is the strongest argument for a legal minimum age over parental discretion. If it fades, it is a summer effect.

The bottom line

Nine months in, the under-16 law has changed behaviour at the margin and reduced one measure of social pressure. It has not removed children from social media, and it was never going to. The evaluation that matters is the one still running. Until it reports, the most accurate thing anyone can say is that the law is doing something, that most children have found a way around it or through it, and that the question of whether they are better off is genuinely open.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Australia's under-16 social media ban working?

Early evaluation data published by eSafety on 31 July 2026 shows the proportion of under-16s holding a social media account fell from 52.4 per cent to 42.1 per cent, reported use fell from 85.9 per cent to 81.5 per cent, and the proportion feeling they were missing out fell from 43.3 per cent to 36.3 per cent. Most children who had accounts before commencement retained them or created new ones. Longer-term wellbeing findings will be released across 2026 to 2028.

When did the social media minimum age law start?

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024. The obligation on platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s holding accounts took effect on 10 December 2025.

Which platforms are age-restricted in Australia?

eSafety's view is that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit are age-restricted platforms. Most standalone gaming and messaging apps and many education and health services are not affected, including Discord, Messenger, Roblox, WhatsApp and YouTube Kids.

Can children or parents be fined under the social media ban?

No. The obligation and the civil penalty in the Act apply to providers of age-restricted social media platforms. The maximum penalty is 30,000 penalty units. There is no penalty on children for having an account or on parents for allowing one.

Do I have to give a platform my ID to prove my age?

The Act provides that platforms must not rely on government-issued identification as the only means of age assurance and must offer a reasonable alternative.

Will the under-16 law be reviewed?

Yes. Section 239B of the Act requires an independent review of the scheme, including its privacy protections, within two years of the obligation taking effect on 10 December 2025.