Four in Five Under-16s Are Still Using Social Media. What Should Parents Do Now?
- Dr Cat Horvat
- Jul 19
- 5 min read
Early research suggests Australia’s social media age restrictions have not changed teen use, as much as many families expected.
A version of the question below has been landing in my messages since Australia’s social media age restrictions began:
“My daughter is 14 and she’s still on Instagram. The social media ban was supposed to stop this, but she just made another account. Am I meant to report her? Take away the phone? What am I actually supposed to do?”
First, take a breath.
Your child is not breaking the law, you are not breaking the law, and parents are not required to report children who still have social media accounts.
The legal responsibility sits with the platforms. Since 10 December 2025, age-restricted platforms have been required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. There are no fines or criminal penalties for children or their families. eSafety describes the change as a delay to social media accounts rather than a ban on children themselves.
What the early research found
A 2026 study published in The BMJ followed 408 Australian adolescents from immediately before the social media age restrictions began until approximately three months afterwards.
More than 85% of the participants aged under 16 reported that they were still using platforms covered by the law. Most were accessing social media through their own accounts, while some reported creating alternative accounts or using private browsers to get around restrictions.
There was some movement. Daily social media use among 14 and 15-year-olds decreased from 78% to 69% . Use remained relatively stable among 12 and 13-year-olds, however, and the researchers found little evidence of an immediate, substantial reduction associated with turning 16.
These findings deserve attention, although they are not a final verdict on Australia’s social media law.
The study captured a small, self-reported sample during the first three months of a major national reform. Implementation was still unfolding, platforms were using different age-checking systems, and children’s accounts could continue to be identified and removed after the study ended.
eSafety reported that platforms had removed access to 4.7 million under-16 accounts by mid-December 2025. That figure represents accounts rather than 4.7 million individual children, but it shows that significant platform action was occurring alongside continued use.
Both things can be true.
Platforms may be removing millions of accounts while many young people continue finding ways to access social media.
The law can change the environment but it can't replace the conversation.
Australia’s social media age restrictions were designed to place greater responsibility on technology companies, rather than leaving individual families to fight billion-dollar platforms alone.
The law can create friction between a child and an account. It can require platforms to improve age assurance, remove underage accounts and reconsider features designed to keep young people scrolling. It can also give parents a clearer boundary when explaining why social media access may need to wait.
A law can't, however, instantly dismantle the social world teenagers have built around these platforms.
For a 14-year-old, Instagram or Snapchat may include the group chat, the birthday invitation, the football team, the joke everyone is discussing at school and the quiet reassurance that they have not been left out. Understanding this does not mean approving of an underage account. It means recognising what your child believes they might lose.
That understanding gives you a far better place to begin than anger or accusation.
What should you do if your under-16 is still using social media?
Begin with the workaround, rather than the wrongdoing
A secret or replacement account tells you that access felt important enough for your child to work for it.
Try:
“I know you’re still using Instagram. I’m not starting this conversation to catch you out. I want to understand what you’re using it for, who you’re connecting with and how you’re keeping yourself safe.”
You can listen without immediately agreeing. Curiosity is not permission.
Separate connection from access
Your child’s desire to remain connected may be genuine, even when their chosen way of doing it is against the platform’s age requirements.
You might say:
“I understand why being part of that group feels important. Your account could still be removed, and I’m not going to help you get around the age check. Let’s work out another way for you to stay connected.”
This keeps your boundary clear while showing that you have heard the need underneath the behaviour.
Make asking for help safer than hiding the problem
Consider what your child expects will happen if they tell you they have received a frightening message, shared something they regret or seen content that has upset them.
A teenager who expects immediate confiscation has a powerful reason to keep the problem hidden.
This does not mean promising that there will never be consequences. It means dealing with safety first and deciding what happens to the device once your child is calm, supported and no longer managing the situation alone.
Try:
“You can always bring an online problem to me. We will deal with what happened before we decide what needs to change.”
Agree on protections that apply wherever they go online
The social media law does not cover every digital space. Many standalone messaging services, gaming platforms and other online communities are excluded, while public social media content can still be viewed without an account.
Family expectations should therefore travel with your child rather than being attached to one particular app.
Talk about:
keeping accounts and personal information private
turning off unnecessary location sharing
refusing messages or requests from unknown people
blocking and reporting harmful contact
keeping phones away from beds overnight
checking before sharing images of other people
speaking to an adult when something feels uncomfortable, confusing or difficult to manage.
A family agreement can turn these expectations into shared decisions instead of a series of rules delivered in the middle of an argument.
One conversation will not finish the job
There is no single perfect speech that will make a child permanently wise, honest and unaffected by social pressure. Digital parenting must be more repetitive than that. It happens when you ask about the video making everyone laugh, notice the mood change after a message arrives, revisit a boundary that is no longer working and remain steady when your child finally tells you something difficult.
The early findings don't tell us that Australia's social media law is useless. They show us that regulation, platform responsibility, education and family relationships each have a different role to play in protecting young people online.
The law can require platforms to do more but it can't notice your child’s silence, understand why a group chat feels impossible to leave or help them decide what to do after something goes wrong; that part still happens in the lounge room.
No panic or pretending; just clearer boundaries, honest conversations and a relationship strong enough to keep the door open.
Need a practical place to begin? Helpful, not hysterical.
Comments