Australia's Social Media Age Ban Ineffective Due to Flawed Initial Checks, Study Finds

Major social media platforms are failing to implement the first and most basic step of Australia's new age-verification law, rendering the world-first ban on users under 16 largely ineffective, according to a new study. The research, conducted by a software testing team that previously advised the government, found that platforms are not requesting age proof even when users register as being on the cusp of the age limit.

Widespread Compliance Failures

Since the law took effect in December, social media operators have been required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent people under 16 from holding accounts. However, software testing firm KJR found significant lapses in a follow-up investigation, as reported by Reuters. The researchers successfully opened 50 test accounts on nine of the ten platforms subject to the law, including Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, and Alphabet's YouTube, by declaring the user's age as 16.

In no instance were the testers asked to provide further proof of age. "You should be asked to demonstrate how old you are, and not once have we been asked to verify our age or use age-assurance measures," said Andrew Hammond, a director at KJR. The study noted that some dummy accounts received advertisements for youth banking products, and one account on X that claimed to be 16 was served pornographic content.

A Flaw in the Vetting Process

The findings point to a critical flaw in the system's design. While much of the public and regulatory focus has been on the accuracy of advanced age-assurance technologies like photo analysis, the initial screening process—which should identify potential underage users for further checks—appears to be failing. This allows young users to easily circumvent the ban by simply entering a false birthdate.

Ad

Of the platforms tested, only the Australia-based live-streaming service Kick refused to create an account without proof of age. In response to the study, a Meta spokesperson stated the test appeared inconsistent with regulatory guidance, which calls for escalating to formal verification based on "behavioural indicators." Snap and TikTok declined to comment, while Alphabet and X did not respond to requests for comment, according to the report.

Market and Regulatory Implications

The study's results amplify concerns about non-compliance that have plagued the law's rollout. The Australian government recently doubled the maximum fine for violations and has warned of potential lawsuits against tech giants like Meta (META), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Snap (SNAP). These companies face growing regulatory pressure in a key market that is often a testbed for global technology legislation.

A spokesperson for Australia's eSafety commissioner said the regulator "remains confident that age-restricted platforms have the technology and resources they need" to comply. However, some advisers involved in the original 2025 government trials warned that the issue of circumvention—where users deliberately provide false information—was not adequately addressed during testing.