Longer term evaluation needed, but current age verification checks are "suboptimal" and being bypassed by many under 16s, warn researchers
There is little evidence that Australia's Social Media Minimum Age Act has led to any immediate reductions in social media use by under 16s, finds an early analysis of survey data published by The BMJ today.
While the researchers acknowledge that legislative changes take time to show results, they argue that current platform age verification checks are inadequate and that many under 16s are actively bypassing these restrictions.
In response to growing concerns about the potential harm of social media use to adolescent health and wellbeing, governments internationally are considering or implementing age-based restrictions, but empirical evidence on their real-world effects is scarce.
In December 2025, Australia implemented a world-first national policy requiring specific social media platforms including Tiktok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat to take reasonable steps to prevent adolescents under 16 years of age from holding accounts.
To evaluate the initial impact of the policy, researchers surveyed 408 Australian adolescents aged 12 to 17 about their social media habits in the past 7 days (daily vs not every day use; average time spent per day) just before restrictions were introduced and again 3 months later (follow-up).
They were also asked how they access social media, their experiences with platform verification checks, and any efforts to circumvent them.
Demographic data such as age, gender, and cultural and linguistic diversity were collected to help interpret the results.
The researchers found that over 85% of participants aged under 16 reported using social media platforms subject to the Act at follow-up, mostly via their own accounts (54-67%), 66% of whom reported exposure to platform age verification checks, most commonly self-declared age (24-39%) and uploading a picture ('selfie') (13-27%).
Efforts to circumvent restrictions, such as use of a 'fake' account (15-19%) or access via a private (incognito) browser (6-11%) were also reported.
Between the start of the study (baseline) and 3-month follow-up, daily social media use was stable among 12-13 year olds, reduced somewhat among 14 to 15 year olds (78% to 69%), and increased for those aged over 16 (80% to 89%).
Time spent per day using social media was relatively stable between baseline and follow-up for 12-13 year olds and those aged over 16, but was lower at follow-up for those aged 14-15.
These are observational findings, and the authors acknowledge that the sample size was small, concentrated in one Australian state (New South Wales), and relied on self-reporting, all of which may have affected the accuracy and generalisability of the results.
However, findings were consistent after further sensitivity analysis, suggesting they are robust and, as such, they say this study "provides key early insights that can guide government refinement and future actions to promote health and wellbeing."
In an accompanying editorial, Dr Amrit Kaur Purba explains that these results offer valuable early signals. She stresses, however, that it is vital to distinguish policy effectiveness from implementation, noting that widespread circumvention and low compliance make it difficult to judge a policy's true potential.
As governments across Europe, North America, and elsewhere consider similar approaches, the author notes that real-world evidence offers an essential contribution to a debate often lacking evidence.
The editorial concludes that future research should examine factors such as implementation fidelity, platform migration, and a broader range of outcomes beyond mental health. Furthermore, determining long-term impact will require systems-based tracking of how populations adapt and any unintended consequences that arise over time.
Three linked The BMJ opinions also reflect on the implications of the research findings.
