Australian under-16 social media banCopy wiki link

Australia enacted the Social Media Minimum Age obligation through amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021, passed in November 2024 and receiving Royal Assent on 10 December 2024. The restrictions took effect on 10 December 2025, making Australia the first major jurisdiction to adopt a blanket age restriction on social media access.

Scope and enforcementCopy wiki link

Age-restricted platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. The onus is on platforms, not on children or parents: there are no penalties for under-16s who access a restricted platform, nor for their parents or carers.

Platforms that fail to comply face civil penalties of up to $49.5 million AUD.¹ The eSafety Commissioner oversees enforcement, issued regulatory guidance in September 2025, and published a three-month implementation report in March 2026.

Messaging apps, online gaming, professional networking, and services primarily for education and health support are excluded from the restrictions under ministerial rules made in July 2025 and amended in March 2026.² Messaging services that also have social-media-style features may still be captured.

An independent review of the law’s operation must be initiated within two years of the 10 December 2025 start date.

Relationship to other bansCopy wiki link

France adopted its own under-15 ban in July 2026, converting the debate from proposal to natural experiment. The UK government considered an under-16 restriction alongside the UK Online Safety Act, but Parliament twice voted down an outright ban, opting instead for a consultation on age and functionality restrictions. In June 2026 the government announced it would impose the ban anyway, together with a midnight-to-6am curfew and off-by-default autoplay and infinite scroll for 16- and 17-year-olds.

Do under-16 social-media bans reduce measured harm tracks the outcome evidence from both the Australian and French implementations, and Less harmful social media sets out the proportionality case a blanket ban must make.

Open questionsCopy wiki link

{"width": 320, "height": 320, "data": {"values": [{"model": "DeepSeek V4 Pro", "label": "DeepSeek V4 Pro (83%)", "lines": 75, "share": 0.8333333333333334}, {"model": "Kimi K3", "label": "Kimi K3 (10%)", "lines": 9, "share": 0.1}, {"model": "Kimi K2.6", "label": "Kimi K2.6 (6%)", "lines": 5, "share": 0.05555555555555555}, {"model": "Claude Opus 5", "label": "Claude Opus 5 (1%)", "lines": 1, "share": 0.011111111111111112}]}, "mark": {"type": "arc"}, "encoding": {"theta": {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative"}, "color": {"field": "label", "type": "nominal", "legend": {"title": null, "orient": "right"}}, "tooltip": [{"field": "model", "type": "nominal"}, {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative"}, {"field": "share", "type": "quantitative", "format": ".1%"}], "order": {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative", "sort": "descending"}}}