New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has unveiled a proposed law banning children younger than 16 from using social media platforms, citing what he said Monday (August 24, 2026) was “harm being done to a generation” of young people.

However, the bill hasn’t yet attracted enough support to pass into law because two of the three parties in Mr. Luxon’s coalition government will vote against it. Passage would require support from Opposition lawmakers, who have yet to decide how they would vote.

“There also wasn’t enough time for lawmakers to hold a vote on the proposal before Parliament dissolved on Oct. 1 ahead of November’s election,” Mr. Luxon said. Bills are required to pass three rounds of voting, usually over a period of months, before they become law.

If reelected, Mr. Luxon is seeking to make his government the latest worldwide to enact age restrictions for social media platforms after dozens of countries have either introduced or are mulling such measures. He said 2025 research showed a third of New Zealand teenagers spent at least five hours a day on social media.

“Social media is exposing them to harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with and it’s affecting their family life, mental health, sleep, and education,” Mr. Luxon said.

The proposal would require social media platforms including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook, to “take reasonable steps” to check users were older than 16, according to material supplied by Mr. Luxon’s party Monday (August 24). This could include “existing account information, facial age estimation, digital ID services and formal ID”, the material said.

Excluded from the proposed law are messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms like Roblox and AI apps with productivity uses, including ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot.

No penalties are proposed for parents or children, but tech firms could be fined up to 10% of their global revenue for failing to meet their obligations. Platforms regularly used by children would be required to assess and report on the risks their networks posed, Luxon said.

Mr. Luxon’s government has mulled such a law since Australia’s world-first social media ban for under 16-year-olds took effect in December 2025. However, it’s been vehemently opposed by the other two parties that make up the government along with Luxon’s center-right group National — libertarian ACT and populist NZ First.

Both minor parties repeated on Monday (August 24) their plans to vote against the law. Lawmakers from the largest Opposition party, center-left Labour, haven’t decided if they’d vote for it, leader Chris Hipkins said.

Since Australia’s law came into force, countries including Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have enacted bans too, while many other countries are studying or developing laws. Child safety advocates and some parents have welcomed age restrictions, while privacy groups say the rules can be cheated and that forcing users to supply identification raises privacy concerns.

In January, a month after Australia’s ban was enacted, social media platforms told an Australian regulator they had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children.

Mr. Luxon’s government enacted a ban in 2024 on the use of cellphones during the school day for students of all ages.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Friday (July 3, 2026) condemned senators who blocked changes to a world-first social media ban for children, saying tech giants would use the delay to destroy incriminating documents that could be used as evidence against them.

The government this week introduced to Parliament amendments aimed at increasing powers of the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s online safety watchdog, to enforce the ban on Australian children younger than 16 from holding accounts on platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube that has been in place since December.

The amendments would have given Inman Grant power to demand documents as well as information from platforms about their efforts to exclude young children. She can currently only demand information.

But the conservative opposition Liberal Party and minor Australian Greens party referred the draft legislation on Thursday (July 2, 2026) to an eight-week Senate inquiry. The center-left Labor Party government does not hold a majority in the Senate.

“It is outrageous the delay because what the eSafety Commissioner has said very clearly is that that will allow the platforms to go and just delete a whole lot of material,” Mr. Albanese told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

“Whereas if it was passed yesterday, that would have been the date from which these demands could be made by the commissioner. So then fines can be issued,” he added.

The amendments would also give the commissioner power to demand information from third parties, including age assurance technology providers, to test claims made by platforms about how children continued to circumvent the ban.

The bill would double the maximum fine to 99 million Australian dollars ($68 million) for platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to exclude children.

Greens Sen. David Shoebridge, who has always opposed the social media ban, questioned why a fine that had never been issued needed to be doubled.

“Doubling penalties that they’ve never used doesn’t seem to me to be a meaningful measure,” Mr. Shoebridge told Sky News Australia. “Is that really going to be the thing that keeps kids safe online?”

Opposition communications spokesperson Sen. Sarah Henderson said the amendments needed to be tougher.

“This is a social media ban which is failing; a half-baked law which is poorly designed, which was rushed, which is badly implemented and which is not working,” Ms. Henderson said.

“We will interrogate this bill properly and, frankly, I think the amendments before the Parliament need to be tougher,” she added.

Parliament passed the initial legislation with overwhelming support in 2024. The 10 targeted platforms were given more than a year to implement the ban.

Many countries who have implemented or are planning similar restrictions have been closely watching progress of Australia’s ban.

The government initially reported more than 5 million children had accounts removed, deactivated or restricted after the ban became law.

But eSafety reported in March that seven in 10 children who held accounts on restricted platforms on Dec. 10 when the ban took effect remained on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.

Ms. Inman Grant said in April she was considering court action against those platforms and YouTube, alleging they were not taking reasonable steps to exclude children.

She had been satisfied with progress made by the remaining restricted platforms: X, Kick, Reddit, Threads and Twitch.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said this week she had received monthly updates from eSafety since March and “we are not seeing improvements.”

Australia’s social media ban for under 16s has had little impact on teenagers’ scrolling habits, researchers said Thursday in one of the first evaluations of the world-leading measures.

Australia in December banned under 16s from the likes of Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, in a crackdown designed to protect children from online bullying and “predatory algorithms”.

But there is little evidence to suggest teenagers have turned away from social media as a consequence, a team of Australia-based researchers found in a peer-reviewed study published by the British Medical Journal.

Underage users have been dodging the restrictions by using accounts registered to older people, setting up fake accounts, or by logging into private browsers.

“We found insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the Act had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16,” the researchers wrote.

There is strong global interest in whether Australia’s laws could provide a blueprint for how to rein in increasingly powerful tech giants.

A growing mass of nations have either introduced or are mulling similar bans— including the United Kingdom, Indonesia, the UAE and New Zealand.

The researchers surveyed more than 400 young social media users immediately before the restrictions came into effect, and again three months after.

There was little change for users aged 12-13, a slight decrease for the 14-15 age group, and an increase in use for those aged 16 and older.

“The findings suggest that the period immediately after the introduction of the act was characterised by limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention of social media restrictions.”

Not ‘impossible’

Tech companies face fines of up to Aus$49.5 million ($34 million) if they fail to show meaningful efforts to weed out underage users.

Australia in March accused Facebook, TikTok and YouTube of failing to meet their obligations.

“Australia’s world-leading social media laws are not failing. But big tech is failing to obey the laws,” Communications Minister Anika Wells said at the time.

“None of this is impossible. None of this is even difficult for big tech, who are innovative billion-dollar companies.”

The nation’s eSafety Commission separately flagged “significant concerns” about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

A growing body of research suggests too much time online is taking a toll on teen well-being, and Australia’s ban has been hailed as a godsend for parents sick of seeing children glued to their phones.

Although platforms have pledged to abide by the laws, they have warned the measures could instead push teenagers into dark, unregulated corners of the internet.

Social media companies bear the sole responsibility for checking that Australia-based users are 16 or older, and must prove they have taken “reasonable steps” to weed out young teenagers.

Some platforms are using AI tools to estimate ages based on photos, while users can also choose to prove their age by uploading a government ID.

The story so far: On December 10, Australia became the first country in the world to implement a social media ban on users under the age of 16. The ban blocks children from accessing nearly 10 big social platforms, including X and Facebook. Platforms that don’t comply with the new rules will face a fine of up to $33 million (A$49.5 million). Australia’s ban caps a year-long debate over whether governments can effectively stop teenagers from using social media platforms. Now, about half a dozen countries have signalled that they will study Australia’s new policy and see if they can emulate it.

What is the new law?

In November, 2024, the Australian government introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which mandated a minimum age of 16 for accounts on certain social media platforms. The new law curtails parents giving consent to their children under 16 to use these platforms. The government’s rationale is that banning social media will protect the mental health and well-being of children. The government sees social media as a fertile ground for cyberbullying, harmful content generation, and online predatory practices.

How have social media firms responded?

Prior to the ban taking effect on December 10, Meta said it was sending warnings to thousands of Australian teenagers between ages 13 and 15, notifying them to download their digital history and delete their accounts. However, it is unclear whether the process has been completed as verification is a lengthy, multi-step undertaking. The country’s internet regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, has noted that there are close to 1,50,000 Facebook users between 13 and 15 years, as well as 3,50,000 Instagram users. Meta’s actions are in line with the restrictions imposed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government on multiple social media platforms including TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Reddit, Twitch and the livestreaming website Kick. These companies are required to take “reasonable steps” to keep underage users off their platforms, failing which they will face fines.

Despite doubts on whether regulation will lead to better mental health outcomes for children, companies are begrudgingly following instructions. A Meta spokesperson said that while they are committed to fulfilling the legal obligations, they have raised their concerns around the regulation, saying a “blanket ban” is hardly the solution. The company claimed this action will isolate teenagers from online communities and information while also giving “inconsistent protection.” Mr. Albanese has responded saying that given this is the first time a law like this is being passed, there will be flaws while implementing it.

How are social media firms verifying age?

Meta advised affected users to update their contact details so that the company can SMS or email them once they turn 16. Once these children cross the cut-off age, users can resume operating their accounts and find the same reels, posts, messages and short videos. Users can also choose to delete their account completely, if they wish. However, there is a fair chance that Meta might inaccurately flag a user as being under 16. An Age Estimation report published by the Australian government found that age verification systems using facial recognition showed false rejection rates higher than “acceptable levels”, at 8.5% and 2.6% respectively, for users of 16 and 17 years of age. In case accounts are incorrectly flagged, Meta has said that users can verify their age either with a government ID or a video selfie via the third-party facial age-verification platform Yoti. Critics have voiced concerns about the surveillance risks of checking children’s ages with age-verification technology.

What are the drawbacks?

Meta vice-president and global head of safety, Antigone Davis, stated that the company would like the app stores of Apple and Google Play to collect age-related data when users sign up, and verify whether they have reached 16 years on behalf of Meta. Ms. Davis added this would ensure a standard procedure and also maintain user privacy. Meta hasn’t disclosed what methods they will use to determine the ages of users, so that children under 16 don’t find a loophole through which to evade the ban. But varied options have been discussed, including government IDs, facial or voice recognition, or age inference methods that consider online user data like interactions to estimate a user’s age.

Gaming platforms like Roblox and Discord have recently been forced to introduce age restrictions for specific features, fearing that they could be potential targets.

Why has such a move been implemented?

The recent crusade by parents against social media platforms over their handling of teenagers accounts’ has exposed the extent to which they evaded responsibility. The court filings in a lawsuit against Meta and TikTok cited internal chats within these companies. “Instagram is a drug… we’re basically pushers,” Meta executives reportedly noted in a conversation. Meanwhile, an internal report at TikTok said that “minors did not have executive mental function to control their screen time.” The investigation also found that Meta had buried evidence linking higher usage of their platforms with “depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison.”

Australia on Wednesday (December 10, 2025) will become the world’s first country to ban social media for children under 16, blocking them from platforms including TikTok, Alphabet’s YouTube and Meta’s Instagram and Facebook.

The ban is being closely watched by other countries considering similar age-based measures as concerns mount over the effects of social media on children’s health and safety.

Below is a summary of what other countries and tech companies are doing to regulate access to social media.

Australia

A landmark law passed in November 2024 forces major social media platforms to block minors younger than 16 starting on Wednesday, one of the world’s toughest regulations targeting major tech platforms. Companies that fail to comply could face penalties of up to A$49.5 million ($32.8 million).

United Kingdom

The Online Safety Act sets tougher standards for social media platforms, including age restrictions to block minors from accessing harmful content. The law was passed in 2023 and enforcement began this year. No age limit for accessing social media has been set.

China

China’s cyberspace regulator has put in place a so-called “minor mode” programme that requires device-level restrictions and app-specific rules to restrict screen time depending on age.

Denmark

Denmark said in November it would ban social media for children under 15, while allowing parents to give exemptions for youngsters down to the age of 13 to access certain platforms. A majority of parties in Parliament said they would back the plan ahead of a formal vote.

France

In 2023, France passed a law requiring social platforms to get parental consent for minors under 15 to create accounts. But according to local media, technical challenges have impeded its enforcement.

Germany

Minors between the ages of 13 and 16 are allowed to use social media only if their parents provide consent. But child protection advocates say controls are insufficient.

Italy

In Italy, children under the age of 14 need parental consent to sign up for social media accounts, while no consent is required from that age upwards.

Malaysia

Malaysia said in November it would ban social media for users under the age of 16 starting next year.

Norway

The Norwegian government in October 2024 proposed raising the age at which children can consent to the terms required to use social media to 15 years from 13, although parents would still be permitted to sign off on their behalf if they are under the age limit.

The government has also begun work on legislation to set an absolute minimum age limit of 15 for social media use.

USA

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act prevents companies from collecting personal data from children under 13 without parental consent. Several states have also passed laws requiring parental consent for minors to access social media, but they have faced court challenges on free speech grounds.

EU Legislation

The European Parliament in November agreed on a resolution calling for a minimum age of 16 on social media to ensure “age-appropriate online engagement”.

It also urged a harmonised EU digital age limit of 13 for social media access and an age limit of 13 for video-sharing
services and “AI companions”. The resolution is not legally binding.

Tech’s own regulation

Social media platforms including TikTok, Facebook and Snapchat say people need to be at least 13 to sign up. Child protection advocates say the controls are insufficient, however, and official data in several European countries show huge numbers of children under 13 have social media accounts.

($1 = 1.5099 Australian dollars).

Australia’s world-first social media ban for under-16s is set to take effect on December 10. The government has called the move “world-leading,” but the law has drawn criticism from tech companies and teens alike.