Australia’s national ban on social media use by children under 16, enacted late last year, has yet to show significant impact in preventing young teens from accessing platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, according to data and accounts gathered six months after the law’s implementation.

The legislation, the first of its kind globally, criminalizes children below 16 having social media accounts and places responsibility on technology companies to enforce age restrictions under threat of substantial fines—up to around $34.8 million ($49.5 million Australian dollars) for noncompliance. The government’s eSafety Commission, which oversees enforcement, reported in March that seven out of ten parents whose children had social media accounts acknowledged their teens continued to use age-restricted services. The commission has ongoing investigations into five major platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube—but has yet to take formal enforcement actions.

Despite the law’s aims, many teenagers have found ways to circumvent the restrictions. Common tactics include using fake birthdates during account creation, employing biometric workarounds like drawing facial markings to confuse age-verification systems, or accessing platforms through the accounts of parents or older siblings. Teen users have described the ban as ineffective, with some reporting no interruptions to their social media access since the law took effect.

Parents express mixed reactions. For some, the legislation provides a valuable tool for reinforcing restrictions at home. Naomi Parrish, mother to a 12-year-old boy, said the law has helped her justify refusing her son’s repeated requests to download TikTok. “It’s given me a reason he can’t have it, and that’s powerful,” she said, noting she tells him that social media use under the age limit is illegal and could result in fines. Conversely, others disappointed by the lack of immediate change feel the ban has yet to alter their children’s online habits, with some parents reporting no teenagers losing access to accounts despite the new rules.

Analysts and parents emphasize that the legislation’s most significant effects may emerge over a longer term, particularly among younger children who have not yet begun using social media. Some families report a gradual cultural shift, with parents increasingly choosing to delay smartphone and social media access for their children. Bec Barton, a mother from western Sydney, suggested the law could normalize a generation growing up without widespread social media exposure, potentially reducing peer pressure and the appeal of such platforms. “Kids are going to come up in an environment where none of their friends have access to it,” she said. “It won’t be the norm anymore.”

Parent advocacy groups remain cautiously optimistic but stress the necessity of robust enforcement against technology companies. Dany Elachi, founder of the Heads Up Alliance, a Sydney-based parent organization, said the law alone is insufficient without active compliance by platforms. His group, mostly composed of parents with primary school children, acknowledges disappointment at the slow pace of change but underscores that lasting impact will require both household commitments and government accountability measures.

As the eSafety Commission continues investigations into major social media companies, further enforcement actions are expected to be announced mid-year, which may provide a clearer picture of the law’s long-term effectiveness in reshaping youth social media engagement patterns.