Skip to content
Contact
Josh Kilmister - Culture - Square Josh Kilmister

Related projects

Related webinars

Article
Dec 05 2025

The End of Algorithmic Adolescence? What Australia’s Ban Means for Brands.

teen with a mobile-1

 

From 10 December 2025, Australia will become the first country in the world to effectively lock under-16s out of mainstream social media accounts.

Platforms including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Reddit, Threads, Twitch and Kick must remove or block accounts held by Australian users under 16 or face fines of up to £25m.

And while we watch on from the other side of the globe, for marketers this has potential to be far more than an Australian story. It’s a live test case for what a post-teen-social landscape could look like - and if regulators elsewhere follow suit, it might not be long before this ‘outback experiment’ is replicated elsewhere.

First things first: it’s not quite a total ban

Despite the headlines, Australia’s rules – introduced via the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act – are more nuanced than “no teens on social”.

In simple terms:

  • Under-16s in Australia can’t hold accounts on certain “age-restricted social media platforms”.
  • Platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating or keeping accounts.
  • The obligation (and fines) sit with platforms, not parents or teens.
  • Young people can still access some content while logged out (e.g. watching YouTube without being signed in), but no posting, uploading, commenting, liking, subscribing or following. And crucially, no algorithmic personalisation based on a logged-in profile

Why Australia is doing this

The political and social context matters, because it’s what other markets may copy.

Key drivers:

  • Youth mental health and wellbeing – lawmakers cite evidence linking heavy social use with anxiety, body image concerns and sleep disruption.
  • Addictive design features – infinite scroll, autoplay, streaks, and highly personalised feeds are seen as manipulating attention in ways children can’t reasonably resist.
  • Failure of self-regulation – multiple inquiries and reports concluded voluntary “safety measures” were not enough, prompting hard law instead.
  • Strong parental sentiment – the government has repeatedly referenced high parental support for tougher rules, and petitions now even argue about how strict the ban should be, not whether it should exist     .

Australia is also not acting in isolation, with countries such as France, Denmark and New Zealand are watching closely as they explore tighter youth online safety rules.

Think of Australia as a live regulatory pilot.

What changes on the platforms themselves?

For marketers, the most immediate changes aren’t legal - they’re changes inside the platforms themselves.

For example…

  • Mass removal of teen accounts

Meta is sending under-16 users in Australia email/SMS/in-app notices that their accounts will be shut down.

YouTube will automatically sign out under-16s, removing access to subscriptions, playlists, uploads and comments.

  • Visibility of teen-created content

Creators under 16 in Australia will be locked out of uploading, and existing content may be hidden until they turn 16.

  • Reporting and compliance layer

Platforms must provide monthly reports to the eSafety Commissioner on under-16 account removals and age-gating efforts.

  • Edge-case platforms under scrutiny

Newer or niche apps (e.g. Lemon8, Coverstar, Yope) are being assessed to see if they fall under the “social” definition.

Even with workarounds (VPNs, falsified dates of birth, logged-out browsing), the core effect is clear: for a significant slice of the Australian population, social media is no longer an addressable, measurable, ID-based channel.

What this hints at for other markets

Even if enforcement isn’t perfect, a policy like Australia’s doesn’t just change platform access – it changes culture. And these indirect effects could be just as significant for marketers.

Should teens grow up outside these platforms, joining them becomes optional rather than inevitable. That alone could reshape how the next generation relates to social media.

That has huge second-order implications:

Kids won’t develop the same early habits or platform attachment.
The algorithmic imprinting that currently hooks users young (ie. the muscle memory of scrolling, liking, posting, seeking validation) simply doesn’t have the same runway. Platforms could lose the next generation of lifelong users before they even arrive.

Alternative sources of entertainment will fill the space.
Take TikTok and Instagram out of the early-teen equation and young people will simply gravitate elsewhere. Gaming ecosystems, group chats or, dare I say it, offline activities, clubs and local spaces. These behaviours can harden into the default, meaning that even once users turn 16, social platforms may no longer be their home.

Youth culture may decentralise.
As social platforms become harder to join, participate in or build identity on, cultural trends could shift away from algorithm-led discovery. More of it may come from gaming, creators on alternative platforms, or local communities rather than a single dominant feed.

For brands, this means paying attention to more than just the legislation. Australia’s law doesn’t just shape what teens can do; it shapes what they want to do - and that shift in cultural defaults could travel just as fast as the regulation itself 

Josh Kilmister - Culture - Square
Book Meeting

Other webinars

See all webinars

In-person events

See all events

Like this Article? Sign up and never miss out

Join mailing list
, , , ,
×