Three Months After Australia’s Ban, 85% Were Still on Banned Platforms

In December 2025, Australia did something no country had done before. It banned children under 16 from having social media accounts.

Parents around the world watched closely. Would it work?

A new study asked the people it affects most: the kids themselves.

Just before the ban started, researchers surveyed hundreds of Australian 10- to 15-year-olds. Three in four of those using social media said they planned to keep using it anyway.

And an early follow-up study suggests many of them did.

The ban: what Australia did

On December 10, 2025, Australia's Social Media Minimum Age restrictions came into force.

Social media companies now have to take "reasonable steps" to stop under-16s from holding accounts. The fines for failing can be huge.

The idea is simple. Delay kids' first contact with social media, and you might protect their mental health during a vulnerable age.

But the law targets accounts. It doesn't stop a child from scrolling without one.

The study: asking kids before the ban

Who took part

Researchers at the University of New South Wales and the Black Dog Institute in Sydney ran the survey. It was the first round of a longer study that will follow these young people over time.

They surveyed 365 Australian adolescents aged 10 to 15, with their parents' consent. The average age was about 13.

Everyone answered online, between October 25 and December 9, 2025. That's the six weeks right before the ban started.

Parents and children filled in their questionnaires separately, so the kids could answer privately.

What they asked

The young people reported whether they used social media, whether they had their own account, and how old they were when they started.

They also said what they planned to do once the ban arrived.

And they filled in two standard questionnaires used by doctors to measure symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Most kids were already on social media

Of the 365 young people, 70% had used social media. About half had their own account.

On average, they first used social media at 11 years old. That's five years before the new legal age.

Three in four planned to keep going

Here's the headline finding. Only 1 in 4 social media users planned to stop completely.

So about a third planned to dodge the rules, perhaps with a fake age or a borrowed account.

Another third planned to keep watching without logging in. On many apps, you can still scroll videos and posts without an account.

That second group matters. The law only targets accounts, so these kids wouldn't technically be breaking it.

The mental health link

The researchers also tested some of the ideas behind the ban.

Earlier use, more symptoms

Kids who had ever used social media reported more anxiety and depression symptoms than those who never had.

Kids who started younger also reported more symptoms. That fits the argument for delaying access.

Having your own account was linked to more anxiety symptoms too. For depression, the account link wasn't statistically clear.

But the links were small

Here's the important context. Each of these factors explained only a sliver of the differences between kids.

In other words, more than 90% of the differences in anxiety and depression came from other things.

That doesn't mean social media is harmless. But it's clearly one factor among many.

And because the survey is a single snapshot, it can't show which came first. Anxious kids might turn to social media, rather than the other way round.

Anxious kids weren't more likely to dodge the ban

One worry is that the most vulnerable kids would be the ones who break the rules.

The survey didn't find that. Anxiety and depression symptoms made no clear difference to whether kids planned to comply.

What happened after the ban?

Plans aren't the same as actions. So what actually happened?

A separate study in The BMJ offers an early answer. Researchers followed 408 Australian adolescents aged 12 to 16 from just before the ban to about three months after.

More than 85% of those under 16 were still using the banned platforms. Most were using their own accounts.

Some reported fake accounts (15% to 19%) or using a private browser (6% to 11%).

Daily use among 12- and 13-year-olds didn't change. It dropped a little for 14- and 15-year-olds, from 78% to 69%.

Overall, the authors found little evidence of an immediate, substantial drop in use among under-16s.

So the kids in the new survey seem to have meant what they said.

What earlier research found

The ban rests on a bigger question: does social media actually harm young people's mental health?

A consistent, modest link

A 2022 review pooled 26 studies with 55,340 adolescents.

Teens who spent more time on social media had a higher risk of depression symptoms. Each extra hour a day was linked to a 13% higher risk.

The link was stronger in girls than in boys. But most of those studies were snapshots, like the new one.

Which comes first?

A 2025 study in JAMA Network Open followed 11,876 US children from age 9 or 10 for three years.

When a child's social media use rose above their usual level, their depression symptoms tended to rise the following year.

But depression symptoms didn't predict more social media use later. That hints the direction may run from social media to low mood, at least partly.

The effect was small, though. And it was still an observational study, not an experiment.

How it fits together

Put together, the evidence points to a real but modest link, strongest in young adolescents.

That supports the idea of delaying social media. The Australian research raises a different question: can a ban on accounts actually achieve that delay?

How much should you trust this?

Early. It's a useful, well-timed snapshot, but it measures intentions and associations.

What makes it convincing

• The timing is excellent: the six weeks right before a world-first law.
• Kids answered privately and separately from their parents.
• It used standard, well-tested questionnaires for anxiety and depression.
• The BMJ follow-up suggests the kids' plans largely matched what happened.

What makes me cautious

• The sample was fairly well-off and urban, so it may not reflect all Australian kids.
• It measured what kids planned to do, not what they did.
• It's a single snapshot, so it can't show whether social media causes symptoms.
• New laws often gain acceptance over time. Compliance could grow as the ban becomes normal.
• One author advises Australia's online safety regulator on evaluating the law. That's disclosed, and it's relevant expertise rather than a commercial interest.

What this means for you

If you're a parent, this study is a useful reality check. A law alone probably won't keep your child off social media.

What seems to matter more is what happens at home:

• Talk before you ban. Kids who feel heard are more likely to be honest about what they're using.
• Delay if you can. The evidence, while modest, is most concerning for younger children.
• Watch the content, not just the clock. Scrolling without an account can still expose kids to harmful videos.
• Make a family plan. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers a free Family Media Plan to help set rules together.
• Notice changes in mood. Withdrawal, sleep problems or loss of interest in things they enjoy deserve a conversation.

The NHS has practical advice for parents worried about a child's mental health.

If you're in crisis, please contact a person, not a chatbot.

In the US, call or text 988. In the UK and Ireland, you can call Samaritans on 116 123, any time.

Elsewhere, Find a Helpline lists free services. If someone is in immediate danger, call emergency services.

This ABC News (Australia) report looks at whether young people are safer under the ban:

What we still don't know

1. Will use drop over time? Three months is early, and norms can shift.
2. Will mental health improve? That's the real goal, and it hasn't been measured yet.
3. What about scrolling without an account? It may carry many of the same risks.
4. Are poorer or rural kids affected differently? This sample was mostly well-off and urban.
5. Which parts of social media do the harm? Content, comparison, lost sleep or lost time with friends may all matter differently.
6. Will other countries copy it? Several are considering their own restrictions.

My take: a ban on accounts isn't a ban on scrolling

What I like about this study is that it tested the ban's assumptions before the ban even started.

That's smart, timely research.

And its answer is sobering. Most kids planned to carry on, and the BMJ follow-up suggests many did.

I'm not convinced this proves bans are pointless. Laws can shift norms slowly, and three months is early.

But if the goal is protecting young minds, a rule about accounts is only a start. Parents, schools and the platforms themselves still have most of the work to do.