One month into Australia’s U16 social media ban, Andhra Pradesh looks to follow suit

The ban applies to platforms where the primary purpose is to “enable online social interaction between 2 or more end – users.” This covers TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit and X. YouTube, initially considered for an exemption due to its educational value, was included in the ban following advice from regulators about algorithmic risks.

However, messaging apps like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, online gaming platforms like Roblox, and educational tools like Google Classroom and YouTube Kids are exempt from the ban to preserve essential communication channels.

Legislation to tackle mental health concerns

According to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government, the legislation addresses the mental health crisis among teenagers. This followed a request from South Australia Premier Peter Malinauskas, after his wife read Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation, which links increased social media usage with rising mental illness among teenagers. A 2025 government-commissioned study found nearly two-thirds of children aged 10 to 15 had been exposed to harmful content online.

“We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs,” Albanese told reporters after the legislation was passed.

Public support for the amendment was high when it was enacted; a YouGov poll in November 2024 showed 77% of Australians supported the ban.

However, experts remain divided. An open letter signed by over 140 academics argued that the ban is “too simplistic” and fails to address the systemic platform design features that cause harm. UNICEF Australia said “the changes won’t fix the problems young people face online.”

There are also concerns that the ban could further isolate marginalised groups. A paper in The Lancet Digital Health warned that the ban could isolate LGBTQ+ youth and those in rural areas, who rely on online communities for support, and push them into less-regulated digital spaces.

Big Tech has also pushed back. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argued that age verification should happen at the app store level rather than on individual apps to protect user privacy. Google claims that the law would be “extremely difficult” to enforce.

Privacy concerns and enforcement challenges

To comply with the law, platforms have deployed facial estimation (using AI to estimate age based on a video selfie), ID uploads (government-issued identification), and third-party verification (banking data or app store tokens). According to the Australia Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind, this has raised concerns “about the widespread privacy implications” of the ban.

The results have been mixed, with some observers calling it a technological cat-and-mouse game.

Meta reported blocking over 500,000 under-16 accounts in Australia within the first few weeks. However, tech-savvy teenagers have found workarounds, including the surging use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNS, software that masks user locations, making it appear as though they are accessing the internet from another country. While the law requires platforms to detect and block VPNs, this has proven difficult to enforce perfectly. Others have simply created new accounts using fake dates of birth.

The ban has also driven teenagers towards alternative apps not covered by the ban. Downloads of photo and video-sharing apps like Lemon8, a lifestyle app owned by TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, TikTok alternative Coverstar, and messaging app Yope have increased.

Legal challenges abound

Even as the law is being enforced, its constitutional validity is being tested in the High Court of Australia. The Digital Freedom Project, an advocacy group led by a legislator from the country’s conservative Libertarian Party, has challenged tha ban, arguing it infringes upon the freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. The High Court agreed to hear this challenge last month, and arguments are set to commence later this year.

Reddit has filed a separate legal challenge, arguing that the law undermines free expression and political discourse for young people. It has also contended that it is primarily a text-based community forum not geared towards children under 18 years of age.

What this means for India

As the Andhra Pradesh GoM studies this model, it will also have to navigate India’s existing legal framework. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, India mandates “verifiable parental consent” for users under 18, rather than a total ban.

However, specific technical mechanisms for this verification in India are yet to be notified by the Centre. Since regulating the internet falls under the ambit of the Information Technology Act, any state-level ban by Andhra Pradesh would likely require coordination with and approval from, the Union government.