Will the world copy Australia’s under-16 social media ban?

When Australia’s under-16 social media ban took effect on 10 December 2025, it didn’t just force platforms to start blocking teenagers at the border of the login screen. It also fired a starting gun for a global policy race: governments from Europe to North America are now watching closely to see whether Australia’s experiment reduces harm—or simply pushes kids to other corners of the internet.

Australia’s law requires major platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts, backed by penalties that can reach A$49.5 million.

The question other countries are asking is blunt: if Australia can do it, why can’t we?

Why Australia’s move is turning heads

Australia’s ban is being marketed as a world-first “hard line” approach—less parental guidance, more legal teeth—aimed at pushing tech companies to build safer systems by default.

International interest is rising for three reasons:

• Politics: child safety plays well almost everywhere.
• Technology: age checks are becoming more feasible (and more contested).
• Pressure: parents, schools and health advocates want action faster than platform reforms usually arrive. Reuters+1

Europe: age limits are moving from talk to action

Denmark: an under-15 ban on the table

Denmark is planning a major restriction on social media use for under-15s, with an aim to have it in place by mid-2026 (and discussion of parental exemptions beginning at 13).

Norway: raising the bar to 15

Norway has been working toward tightening its minimum age framework to 15, framing it as protection from algorithmic harm and data exploitation.

France and Spain: pushing up to 15–16

France has already legislated for parental consent under 15 (with enforcement challenges), and broader under-15 or under-16 restrictions continue to gain momentum in European debates.

At EU level, lawmakers have also backed the idea of a minimum age of 16 (non-binding but politically significant), signalling that a continent-wide approach is on the agenda—even if implementation is messy.

Ireland: age verification via digital ID

Ireland is exploring approaches that lean into digital ID and formal age assurance rather than a flat ban—highlighting a key split in the global debate: “ban vs verify.”

The UK: watching, but not committing

Britain has passed major online safety legislation, but the government has so far leaned toward evaluating the impact of existing rules before jumping to an Australia-style ban.

This matters because the UK often becomes a bellwether: if it eventually moves to a strict age restriction model, it could accelerate similar proposals elsewhere.

The US: mostly state-by-state, and courts are heavily involved

In the United States, most action has been at the state level, with age-restriction laws in places like Utah and Florida—many of them facing legal challenges around free speech and constitutional limits.

The lesson other governments may take from the US is that even if a ban is politically popular, it can be slowed or reshaped by constitutional litigation.

Asia-Pacific and beyond: interest is growing

Outside Europe and North America, Australia’s ban has also raised eyebrows in countries weighing stricter controls for minors online. Reporting and analysis point to interest in places including Malaysia and Brazil, among others, as governments explore their own child-safety frameworks.

The big obstacle: enforcement (and the “migration” problem)

Australia’s early experience shows the central enforcement challenge: if you block the biggest platforms, teenagers don’t stop socialising online—they move.

One major trend since the ban began has been under-16s shifting to smaller apps and services, some of which are less regulated and less resourced for safety.

This “migration effect” is likely to be the key metric foreign governments watch. If the ban drives kids into harder-to-monitor corners of the internet, other countries may opt for different models—like tighter design rules, safer defaults, or mandatory age assurance for specific high-risk features.

The other obstacle: rights, privacy and backlash

Human rights and child welfare groups are split. UNICEF and other advocates have warned that blanket bans can cut off children who rely on online communities for support, identity, or information—especially vulnerable kids.

Meanwhile, platforms argue that sweeping restrictions tend to require broader identity checks, potentially pressuring millions of adults into sharing more personal data—creating privacy and security risks.

So, will other countries follow?

Some will—especially those already moving in that direction (Denmark and Norway are the clearest near-term signals).

But many won’t copy Australia exactly. The emerging global pattern looks more like a menu of approaches:

• Hard bans (Australia-style)
• Digital ID / age assurance systems
• Parental consent models
• Design restrictions (limits on recommender algorithms, addictive features, or direct messaging for minors)

What happens next in Australia—compliance rates, safety outcomes, loopholes, and teen migration—will shape which option wins.