Australia’s world-first attempt to ban social media for under-16s has shown little evidence of reducing use among young people, a new study has found.The study, released today, raises questions over whether a similar ban proposed in the UK will substantially reduce young people’s use of social media.The research found more than eight in ten youngsters covered by the restrictions were still accessing social media three months after the law came into force, with many using their own accounts and some finding ways around the checks altogether.It comes just a week after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he would introduce a similar under-16 social media ban in the UK, aiming to block millions of children from using platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, X, Facebook and potentially YouTube.The study, published in The BMJ, examined the impact of Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act, which came into force in December 2025 and requires platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s holding accounts.Researchers surveyed 408 Australian 12 to 17-year-olds before the restrictions were introduced and then again three months later.More than 85 per cent of under-16s reported using social media platforms covered by the legislation at follow-up, mostly through their own accounts.”Little evidence was found of immediate substantive reductions in reported social media use by adolescents under 16 years,” the authors wrote.Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act requires platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X and YouTube to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent under-16s holding accounts | GETTYTwo-thirds reported encountering age-verification checks, but many children reported finding ways around them.The most common checks involved users declaring their age or uploading a selfie photograph. Researchers found 15 to 19 per cent of under-16s reported using fake accounts, while six to 11 per cent accessed platforms through private or incognito browsers.The authors said implementation of age-verification measures had been “suboptimal”.They said the first months after the law came into force had been characterised by “limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention of social media restrictions.”They found daily social media use among 12 and 13-year-olds remained largely unchanged after the ban was introduced. Usage fell slightly among 14 and 15-year-olds but rose among those aged 16 and over. Statistical analysis found insufficient evidence that the law had substantially reduced overall social media use.The findings are likely to be seized on by opponents of Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed ban.The authors of the report said implementation of age-verification measures had been ‘suboptimal’ | GETTYSupporters of the restrictions argue smartphones and social media are fuelling a mental health crisis among young people. However, critics warn age-verification systems are intrusive, easy to bypass and may do little to tackle the underlying problem. Technology firms including Meta and Snap have argued that blanket bans risk pushing children towards less regulated corners of the internet.Opponents of social media bans also argue the evidence for such sweeping restrictions remains far from settled. They say online platforms can provide opportunities for connection, self-expression and access to information. They also argue social media can support social development and the maintenance of peer relationships.Some also warn that enforcing age restrictions could jeopardise people’s privacy as they are likely to require intrusive age-verification systems for users of all ages, including photographs, identity documents or other personal data.Earlier this year more than 400 scientists and academics signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on age-assurance systems, arguing that their effectiveness has not been proven and warning they risk creating privacy, security and surveillance concerns while remaining relatively easy for determined young people to bypass.Many say the debate has become increasingly driven by political pressure rather than evidence, noting that much of the research on social media and mental health remains mixed and that experts continue to disagree about the scale of any harms and the best way to address them.However, the researchers cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from the early findings.They stressed that longer-term monitoring will be needed before the policy can be fully judged.The researchers also noted that “the full impacts of the Act may not be evident for a decade”.They suggested that stronger age-assurance systems may be required if governments want such bans to work.