How will Australia’s under-16 social media ban work?

From 10 December, under-16s in Australia will be banned from using major social media services including Tiktok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Threads.

They will not be able to set up new accounts, and existing profiles must be deactivated.

The ban – the first of its kind – is being watched closely by other countries.

The government says it will reduce the negative impact of social media’s “design features that encourage [young people] to spend more time on screens, while also serving up content that can harm their health and wellbeing”.

A study it commissioned earlier in 2025 found that 96% of children aged 10-15 used social media, and that seven out of 10 of them had been exposed to harmful content. This included misogynistic and violent material as well as content promoting eating disorders and suicide.

One in seven also reported experiencing grooming-type behaviour from adults or older children, and more than half said they had been the victim of cyberbullying.

Ten platforms are currently included: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit and streaming platforms Kick and Twitch.

The government assesses potential sites against three main criteria:

• whether the platform’s sole or “significant purpose” is to enable online social interaction between two or more users;
• whether it allows users to interact with some or all other users; and
• whether it allows users to post material

YouTube Kids, Google Classroom and WhatsApp are not covered as they are not deemed to meet those criteria.

Under-16s will also still be available to view most content on online platforms which do not require an account.

Critics have called on the government to extend the ban to cover online gaming sites.

Platforms such as Roblox and Discord have introduced age checks on some features in an apparent bid to ward off inclusion.

Children and parents will not be punished for infringing the ban.

Instead, social media companies face fines of up to A$49.5m (US$32m, £25m) for serious or repeated breaches.

The government says firms must take “reasonable steps” to keep kids off their platforms, and should use multiple age assurance technologies.

These could include government IDs, face or voice recognition, or so-called “age inference”, which analyses online behaviour and interactions to estimate a person’s age.

Platforms cannot rely on users self-certifying or parents vouching for their children.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began closing teen accounts from 4 December. It said anyone mistakenly kicked off could use government ID or provide a video selfie to prove their age.

Snapchat has said users can use bank accounts, photo ID or selfies for verification.

Some fear that age assurance technologies may wrongly block adults while failing to spot underage users.

The government’s own report found that facial assessment technology is least reliable for teenagers.

Questions have also been raised about the scale of the potential fines.

“It takes Meta about an hour and 52 minutes to make A$50 million in revenue,” former Facebook executive Stephen Scheeler told the AAP news agency.

Critics also argue that the limited scope of the ban – even if properly implemented – undermines its ability to protect children.

Dating websites are excluded along with gaming platforms, as are AI chatbots, which have recently made headlines for allegedly encouraging children to kill themselves and for having “sensual” conversations with minors.

Others argue that educating children about how to navigate social media would be more effective.

Some teens told the BBC they would set up fake profiles ahead of the deadline – although the government has warned social media companies to identify and remove such accounts. Others have switched to joint accounts with their parents.

Commentators also predict a surge in the use of VPNs – which hide a user’s location – as happened in the UK after the implementation of age control rules there.

Communications Minister Annika Wells conceded that the ban may not be “perfect”.

“It’s going to look a bit untidy on the way through,” she said in early November. “Big reforms always do.”

Critics have also raised concerns about the large-scale collection and storage of data required to verify users’ ages.

Australia – like much of the world – has had a series of high-profile data breaches where sensitive personal information was stolen and published or sold.

But the government insists the legislation incorporates “strong protections” for personal data.

These stipulate that it may only be used for age verification and must be subsequently destroyed, with “serious penalties” for breaches.

Social media companies were aghast when the ban was announced in November 2024.

Firms argued it would be difficult to implement, easy to circumvent and time consuming for users, and would pose risks to their privacy.

Companies also suggested it might drive children into dark corners of the internet and deprive young people of social contact.

Snap – which owns Snapchat – and YouTube also denied being social media companies.

Days before the ban was due to take effect, YouTube said the “rushed” new laws would leave children less safe as they will still be able to use the platform without an account, removing “the very parental controls and safety filters built to protect them”.

YouTube’s parent company, Google, was reportedly considering a legal challenge over its inclusion but did not respond to a BBC request for comment.

Despite its early implementation, Meta warned the ban would leave teens with “inconsistent protections across the many apps they use”.

At parliamentary hearings in October 2025, TikTok and Snap said they opposed the ban but would follow it.

Kick – the only Australian company covered by the new law – said it would introduce a “range of measures” as it continued to engage “constructively” with authorities.

Denmark has announced plans to ban social media for under-15s, while Norway is considering a similar proposal.

A French parliamentary enquiry has also recommended banning under-15s from social media, and a social media “curfew” for 15- to 18-year-olds.

The Spanish government has drafted a law which would require legal guardians to authorise access for under-16s.

In the UK, new safety rules introduced in July 2025 mean online companies face large fines or even the jailing of their executives if they fail to implement measures to protect young people from seeing illegal and harmful content.

Meanwhile, an attempt in the US state of Utah to ban under-18s from social media without parental consent was blocked by a federal judge in 2024.