Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban: A Global Turning Point in Online Child Safety

The growing concern of psychological harm caused by the social media giants of our age on children’s well-beingis a conversation that has been ongoingfor over a decade.

However, this conversation has accelerated globally in the last five years, with parents and teachers demanding that both governments and big tech companies take urgent steps to actively protectchildren online.

In a landmark move, on the 10^th December 2025, Australia became the very first country to outright ban social media for children under the age of 16.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024

The Australian Parliament enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social media Minimum Age) Act 2024 (the “SMMA”) in December 2024, however, its provisions only took effect last week.

The purpose of the law is to ‘enhance the online safety and wellbeing of young people’.As noted by the Queensland Chief Health Officer, ‘existing studies provide compelling indications of possible negative links between unrestrained social media usage and the cognitive, emotional, and social wellbeing of young people.’

The SMMA provides that social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, X, Reddit, YouTube, and TikTok, must take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent children under the age of 16 from holding accounts on their platforms. Platforms face fines of up to A$49.5 million for non-compliance, however, the government hasn’t specified what technology the platforms should implement.

Under-16s can still hold accounts where the platform has the primary purpose of supporting the education or health of its users, messaging, and playing games online, as set out by the Minister for Communications in July 2025.

The teenagers challengingthe SMMA

Critics of the SMMA argue that the Act infringes the rights of under-16-year-olds, particularly their rights to freedom of expression and communication.

Two such critics, teenagers Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, have brought a High Court case against the Australian federal government, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional because it burdens the implied freedom of political communication. This freedom is a limitation on the power of the Parliament to make laws, rather than an individual right, and in order for the law to be valid, it must have a legitimate purpose and be proportionate in justifying the burden on political communication.

To succeed, they will need to persuade the court that the SMMA will lead to a reduction in political communication in Australia. Considering that few under-16s are engaged in political conversations on social media, this seems unlikely.

They will also argue that the ban is not a proportionate action since other alternatives to address the problem of online safety could have been taken, for example, introducing parental consent pathways, age-appropriate feature gating, and targeted moderation/takedown.

However, the Australian government has taken the stance that tech companies have had decades to step up and improve their practices, and that their efforts simply haven’t been enough.

Litigation against Big Tech

The Los Angeles judge Carolyn Kuhl ordered in October that the CEOs of Meta, Snapchat, and Instagram testify in court early next year over allegations thattheir platforms are intentionally designed to cause addiction among teenagers.Her ruling steamrolls over the CEOs’ arguments that appearing in a trial would ‘interfere with business operations’ and be an ‘abuse of discretion’.

Hundreds of claims from school districts and parents have been consolidated into a single case which seeks to hold the big tech companies responsible for the impacts their apps have on the mental health of young people. They argue that recommendations from the algorithm, infinite scrolling ability, and constant notifications encourage addiction and fuel anxiety and depression among young users.

Big tech companies state that although they take young people’s safety and health seriously, the federal law protects them from being responsible for what people post on their platforms. However, Judge Kuhl has made clear that they may still face claims of negligence and personal injury.

Early impact of the ban in the UK

With concerns about social media and mobile phone usage running high for parents and schools, the Australian ban stirs up questions for the UK over measures taken to protect children.

Wymondham High Academy in Norfolk has written to parents to inform them that from January 2026, students will be provided with lockable phone pouches to place their phones in during school hours. Teenagers’ increasing dependency on phones, they say, is ‘detrimental to their education and to their emotional well-being’.

An Education Committee report surveyed 900 schools this year and found that student engagement had improved by 83%, behaviour had improved by 74%, and academic results had improved by 65% where similar systems had been implemented.

However, some studies in the UK and Ireland have found that a ban on phones has had little to no impact on well-being or academic achievement. Research from the House of Lords has also demonstrated a major gap in both adults and children’s education regarding media literacy, particularly relating to AI and social media. An outright ban for under-16s is unlikely to change or improve this.

As it stands, the UK government has committed to placing new duties on social media companies to implement systems that promote the safety of both children and adults through the Online Safety Act 2023.

There have already been reports of Australian teenagers bypassing the age-restriction technologies on these platforms in less than five minutes, however, the UK and other countries looking to tighten safety measures for their children online will unquestionably be watching closely to see if the ban has the desired impact.

For more information on our Legal Services at Taylor Hampton Solicitors see HERE:  If you have been affected by any of the issues and would like to get in touch confidentially, please contact us by sending an email to [email protected] or calling +442074275970.

Disclaimer

This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting.