Teens Bypassing Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban, Peer-Reviewed Study Finds

Teenagers are bypassing Australia’s social media age ban through fake accounts, borrowed logins and private browsers, according to new research from the University of Newcastle.

More than 85 per cent of Australian adolescents under 16 continued using the social media platforms targeted by the country’s world-first age ban during the first three months after it took effect, a peer-reviewed study published in the British Medical Journal has found.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Newcastle and published last Wednesday, assessed the initial impact of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 on 408 adolescents aged 12 to under 17. It found “insufficient evidence” that the law produced any substantive reduction in social media use among those it was designed to restrict.

“Despite the intent of the Social Media Minimum Age Act 2024 to delay access to social media platforms and reduce the potential for online harms, little evidence was found of immediate substantive reductions in reported social media use by adolescents under 16 years,” the authors wrote.

The Act, which came into force in December 2025, requires platforms including TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating or maintaining accounts. Corporations that fail to comply face civil fines of up to A$49.5 million.

The Australian eSafety Commissioner’s own compliance update, cited in the study, found that as many as seven in ten children retained social media accounts three months after the law took effect.

Age Checks and Workarounds

Among under-16 participants who reported using restricted platforms at three-month follow-up, only 39 per cent or fewer reported encountering any age verification measure across those platforms. The most common method platforms deployed was self-declared age — where users simply type in a birth date — reported by 24 to 39 per cent of participants. Uploading a “selfie” was required by some platforms, reported by 13 to 27 per cent.

Where platforms did deploy age checks, teenagers found ways around them. Among under-16 participants, 9 to 29 per cent reported accessing restricted platforms using someone else’s account. Between 15 and 19 per cent created fake accounts with false age details. A further 6 to 11 per cent accessed platforms via private browsers.

The researchers noted that adolescents “may be highly motivated to circumvent age-based restrictions” given that social media serves core social functions such as peer interaction and identity formation, and that platforms are designed to reinforce habitual use.

The age verification methods now being used by platforms — including selfie uploads and requests for photo identification — have raised concerns among digital rights advocates about the collection and storage of biometric data from minors. Critics of the legislation who have previously argued for its repeal warned before implementation that age-gating would require surveillance infrastructure at odds with children’s privacy.

Longer-Term Assessment Needed

The researchers said that more data was needed before fully assessing the ban’s effectiveness. “The full impacts of the Act may not be evident for a decade,” they wrote, adding that any potential benefits would be more likely among younger children not yet heavily exposed to social media than among current adolescents for whom use is already established.

The study’s authors called for interventions “that tackle a broader range of drivers of harmful social media use” in ways that align with the social and digital realities of young people.

The study’s descriptive findings also suggested some adolescents shifted their online activity rather than reducing it. More participants reported spending increased time on messaging apps such as WhatsApp after the Act took effect than reported spending less time on them. The authors said longer-term research was needed to assess whether the legislation was displacing online activity rather than reducing it.

The eSafety Commissioner plans to continue investigating platforms’ adherence to the Act. A 12-month follow-up study of the same cohort is planned for December 2026.

Image via Adobe.

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.

---

ODM Daily Commentary

Let’s be honest: 85 per cent of teenagers under 16 are still on social media. The world-first Australian ban is a failure. A multi-million dollar, headline-grabbing, political grandstanding failure.

And the best part? The government’s own eSafety Commissioner found that seven in ten children kept their accounts. So the only people surprised by this study are the ones who didn’t bother to ask any teenagers in the first place.

What did they expect? That 14-year-olds would politely nod, delete their TikTok, and take up stamp collecting? Teenagers are motivated. They have social needs, identity formation, and a burning desire to see what their friends are posting. A law that says “you can’t create an account” is about as effective as telling a teenager they can’t date someone — it just drives the behaviour underground.

The study reveals the obvious workarounds:

• Borrowing someone else’s account (up to 29 per cent).

• Creating fake accounts with false ages (up to 19 per cent).

• Using private browsers to bypass checks (up to 11 per cent).

Meanwhile, the verification methods are a joke. Self-declared age — just typing in a birthday — is the most common “check.” Uploading a selfie is required by some platforms, which is less a security measure and more a data harvesting operation.

And that’s the real scandal here. The law forces young people to hand over biometric data — face scans, IDs, sensitive information — to platforms with terrible track records on privacy. YouTube paid $170 million for violating children’s privacy. TikTok is being sued for the same. And now we’re asking teenagers to trust these same companies with their facial geometry?

The study’s authors call for interventions that “tackle a broader range of drivers of harmful social media use.” Translation: maybe banning isn’t the answer. Maybe we should actually address why kids are glued to screens in the first place. Maybe we should make families stronger, communities safer, and real life more attractive than the digital dopamine drip.

Instead, we got a law that:

1. Doesn’t work.

2. Creates new privacy risks.

3. Gives the government a precedent for mandatory digital ID.

4. Undermines parental authority by pretending the state knows better.

The comments section on the original article nails it. One reader calls it “part of creeping marxism and islamism.” Another says the law is “more about control/tracking of adults, rather than children.” And a retired IT professional notes that “EVERY age check is EASILY overcome by a 12 year old.”

They’re not wrong.

So here’s the uncomfortable question: if the ban is a failure, and everyone knew it would fail, what was the real purpose?

Was it to protect children? Clearly not — the evidence is already in.
Was it to look tough on tech? Maybe.
Was it to normalise digital surveillance? Almost certainly.

The UN has been pushing for global digital IDs. The World Economic Forum wants “digital identities” for everyone. And Australia just passed a law that makes uploading biometric data to third-party platforms seem normal, even routine.

The study’s final warning is chilling: the full impacts may not be evident for a decade. By then, a generation of Australians will have had their faces scanned, their IDs uploaded, and their digital footprints permanently etched into corporate and government databases.

All in the name of “protecting the children.”

The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions. And this time, it’s paved with selfies.

— ODM Daily