Australia, almost all under-16s bypass social media ban. Meanwhile, the government doubles fines
Six months after the social media ban for under-16s came into effect, Australia is raising the stakes. The government in Canberra has introduced new legislation that doubles the maximum fine for systematic violations, increasing it from 49.5 to 99 million Australian dollars (about 68 million US dollars) and substantially expanding the investigative powers of the eSafety Commissioner. This figure is not arbitrary: it aligns the penalty ceiling with that provided by Australian competition and consumer protection law.
The crackdown does not arise in a vacuum. Compliance checks conducted by the eSafety itself found that platforms have not adopted the reasonable measures required by law, while a series of independent surveys describe a ban that has largely remained on paper. The announcement from the Prime Minister's office frames the measure as a reinforcement of the existing framework.
Teenagers are still online
Official numbers alone would suggest success: over 5 million accounts belonging to under-16s have been removed, deactivated, or restricted since the regulation came into effect. However, independent surveys temper this picture: a study from the University of Newcastle published in the BMJ estimates that over 85% of adolescents under sixteen are still present on at least one platform, while a survey by the Molly Rose Foundation, cited by Engadget and conducted in April 2026 with more than a thousand kids aged 12 to 15, places the figure of those who still had access to social media despite the ban at 61%.
The BMJ study, released on June 24, 2026, tracked 408 adolescents aged 12 to 17, interviewed before the law took effect and again three months later. The effects on daily use are modest and vary by age group: among twelve-thirteen-year-olds, daily use remained stable; among fourteen-fifteen-year-olds, it dropped from 78% to 69%; while among over-16s, who are not covered by the law, it even increased from 80% to 89%. The authors note the limitations of the work: a small sample, focused solely on New South Wales, and based on the statements of participants.
An age verification that verifies little
The reason for this resilience lies in the mechanism designed to enforce the ban. A large portion of under-16s still active did not have to invent anything: between 54 and 67% simply used the accounts they already owned, and 66% had still encountered some form of age verification. The most common method was self-declaration of age, encountered by 24-39% of respondents, followed by uploading a selfie (13-27%); the strictest check, a photo of an official document, concerned only 5% of twelve-thirteen-year-olds and 11% of fourteen-fifteen-year-olds. Where the filter was so light, staying connected did not require significant cleverness: among those who chose to bypass it, 15-19% opened fake accounts, 9-29% entered using another person's account, 6-11% relied on private browsing, while the use of VPNs was minimal.
An accompanying editorial by Amrit Kaur Purba from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine summarizes the phenomenon: "Overall, these data describe a policy only partially implemented, where the mechanism designed to limit access has not been reliably activated. The Australian experience shows that legislating a restriction does not equate to enforcing it: when age verification relied on self-declared age, most adolescents continued to access the banned platforms." A warning that, the author cautions, also applies to countries on the same path, including the UK.
Doubled penalties and broader powers
It is on this gap between law and application that the new package intervenes. In addition to doubling the maximum fine, the heart of the reform is the expansion of what the regulator can demand: the eSafety Commissioner will be able to require documents and evidence not only from platforms but also from third parties such as age verification providers and app stores. Among the materials that can be requested are internal company elements like board meeting minutes and internal emails. The fine for failing to comply with formal information requests is also doubled. In the meantime, the regulator has opened investigations for possible non-compliance against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not mince words: "It is clear that big tech companies are not doing enough to comply with the law: there are still too many children on social media," he stated, adding that the changes "reflect the seriousness with which we consider any non-compliance." Even more direct was Communications Minister Anika Wells, who claimed that platforms "are employing tricks straight out of the big tech manual, doing the bare minimum to get by."
The new legislation has not yet been approved by parliament, and the timeline for the implementation of the more severe fines will depend on the proceedings. However, the authors of the study highlight that the ban seems more suited to preventing access for children under eight than to deterring teenagers who already use social media.