Protecting Children in the Digital Age: Australia’s Under-16s Social Media Ban as a Turning Point in Online Child Protection

Emma McHugh

Australia’s decision to ban children under the age of 16 from using social media has marked a significant moment in global digital regulation, sparking widespread debate over whether other countries should adopt similar measures.

The policy represents a bold and necessary intervention in an era in which digital platforms exert increasing influence over young people’s mental health, behaviour and development.

While the ban has attracted controversy and criticism, it sets an important precedent by prioritising the wellbeing of children over the commercial interests of technology companies. In doing so, Australia has signalled a willingness to move beyond ineffective reforms and address directly the systemic risks posed by social media to young users.

On the 10^th of December 2025, Australia made history by becoming the first country to implement a nationwide ban on social media use for under-16s through the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.

Under the new legislation, age-restricted social media platforms, including major companies such as X, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok will face penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent users under the age of 16 from making an account. Platforms may face fines of up to A$49.5 million for serious or repeated breaches. Notably, the law places responsibility solely on social media companies to enforce the ban, reflecting a clear shift away from parental enforcement towards corporate accountability. By imposing clear legal responsibilities and meaningful penalties on platforms, the ban signals a transition to proactive regulation of digital harms, rather than reactive intervention once harm has already taken place.

Australia’s approach has already begun to shape international discussions around online child protection. Several European countries such as France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Italy and Greece are currently drafting or considering bills to implement similar age-based restrictions for social media platforms.

Moreover, in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has stated that he is ‘watching what is happening in Australia’ and has not ruled out the possibility of comparable measures being introduced in the UK, emphasising that ‘all options are on the table’ in addressing the impact of social media on young people. This position is important given that more than 60 Labour MPs have reportedly urged the Prime Minister to back an under-16s social media ban similar to that in Australia.

The central rationale underpinning the Australian government’s decision to introduce such a stringent ban is the protection of the mental health and wellbeing of Australian children in an increasingly digital age. The government has taken the view that the risks associated with social media use, including cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content and contact with online predators, outweigh its potential positives for children.

Evidence supporting their approach is provided by the 2024/25 eSafety Commissioner’s ‘Digital Use and Risk: Online Platform Engagement’ report, which found that 96% of Australian children aged between 10 and 15 had used social media.

Crucially, this report identified consistent and widespread patterns of exposure to online harms within this cohort, with extremely worrying statistics. For instance, of those surveyed, 71% had encountered content associated with harm, 57% had seen online hate, 52% had been cyberbullied, 24% had experienced online sexual harassment, 14% had experienced online grooming-type behaviour and 8% had experienced image-based abuse.

In light of these figures, the ban appears not as an overreaction, but as a long-overdue acknowledgement that existing safeguards have failed to adequately protect children in an overwhelmingly harmful digital environment. A more vigorous regulatory approach was necessary, one that prioritises prevention over the ineffective reliance on platform self-regulation and parental supervision.

The potential benefits of the ban are illustrated by the experience of an Australian teenager, Amy, who described its effects in an interview with the BBC. She explained that for the first time in years, she feels free. Without access to social media, Amy was encouraged to engage in more solitary activities and hobbies, such as crocheting, studying and exercising without the constant distraction of online platforms. Her experience highlights how reduced social media use may encourage healthier habits and improve focus among young people.

Data indicates that more than 4.7 million social media accounts associated with users under the age of 16 have been taken offline following the introduction of Australia’s social media ban, suggesting that it has already served a protective function. During the Bondi Beach terror attack on 14 December 2025, graphic footage circulated rapidly online. However, children under the age of 16 were largely shielded from such content under the new restrictions. This is particularly significant given the well-documented psychological harms associated with unfiltered exposure to violent imagery, underscoring the preventative value of the ban during moments when platform moderation often fails.

While questions remain as to whether a complete ban on social media use for under-16s represents the most appropriate regulatory response, particularly given the limited empirical evidence available at this early stage, it nonetheless constitutes an important recognition that existing legal frameworks have failed to adequately protect children. The scale of harm associated with social media use is now well established and Australia’s decisive intervention serves as a powerful reminder that more robust regulatory action is required.

Whether through a comprehensive ban or alternative measures of comparable strength, other jurisdictions must confront the need to do more to safeguard children in the digital environment.