Four out of five Australian young people reported still accessing social media in the months after a ban for under-16s took effect, according to new research which threatens to cast doubts on the UK’s incoming restrictions.
The findings from a small study of the initial impacts of the world-first ban suggested “insufficient evidence of any substantive early effects”, the paper from the University of Newcastle, Australia, said.
The UK is set to have a ban in place on certain social media for under-16s by spring 2027, after an announcement by Sir Keir Starmer earlier this month. But critics have warned early evidence from Australia shows the ban fails to keep children off social media platforms and risks pushing children into less regulated spaces on the internet.
Australia introduced a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in December 2025.
Technology secretary Liz Kendall has previously acknowledged the ban will not be a “complete silver bullet”, saying it is about providing clarity for parents and children and resetting expectations and social norms when it comes to young people’s use of social media.
She has also insisted that 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 the ban is still relatively new and suggested it could be a decade before the full impact of it is known.
It said 408 children aged 12 to 17 were asked about their social media habits just before restrictions were introduced in December and then surveyed again three months later.
Researchers found some 85 per cent of participants aged under 16 reported still using social media platforms covered by the ban, mainly under their own accounts.
Of these two thirds reported encountering some form of age verification, most commonly self-declared age, or uploading of a picture.
Almost a fifth reported using a fake account to get around restrictions, while around 10 per cent said they used a private browser.
The paper stated: “The findings suggest that the period immediately after introduction of the Act was characterised by limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention of social media restrictions.
“In this context, overall, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the Act had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16 years.”
Andy Burrows is the chief executive of Molly Rose Foundation, which was set up in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful content online. Mr Burrows has continually warned a ban is likely to prove ineffective at keeping children away from social media, while failing to address what he describes as “fundamental product safety issues” such as harmful and distressing content being pushed to people through personalised algorithms.
“This important research shows that Australia’s social media ban has failed to keep under-16s off restricted platforms, nor made any meaningful difference to how long teenagers spend using high-risk sites,” he said.
“Keir Starmer announced a ban without a plan, and unless ministers have a coherent plan to urgently learn lessons, the UK’s ban will similarly unravel. Parents will be left with false hope and a misplaced sense of their children’s safety.
“The next prime minister must enter Downing Street with a convincing strategy that properly protects children from online harm, rather than relying on a performative ban which, as this research suggests, is unlikely to improve our teens’ mental health and wellbeing.”
Researchers said while there was “insufficient evidence of any substantive early effects” of the ban, the “potential benefits of the legislative change take time to manifest and often require investment in accountability and education mechanisms to encourage compliance and uptake”.
They described their findings as giving “key early insights that can guide government refinement and future actions to promote health and wellbeing”.
Previously, polling commissioned by the Molly Rose Foundation suggested around six in 10 12 to 15-year-olds who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to one or more active accounts in March this year.
Seven in 10 children still using restricted sites said it was “easy” to get around the ban, the polling by YouthInsight of 1,050 Australians aged 12–15 found.
The foundation, set up in memory of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful content online, has argued a ban might fail to address what it describes as “fundamental product safety issues” such as harmful and distressing content being pushed to people through personalised algorithms.
But many campaigners including bereaved parents have welcomed the ban, hailing it a “watershed moment for child protection”.
Meanwhile some big tech firms have voiced their opposition, 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.
