WeeklySA_AdminRESTRICTIONS: Australia made history by banning children under 16 from major social media platforms. But early evidence suggests the law is being widely ignored. Harvard scholar Cass Sunstein explains why social pressure, fear of missing out and the power of social norms may be stronger than legislation—and what governments can do instead…
By Christina Pazzanese
When Australia became the first country in the world to ban under-16s from major social media platforms in December 2025, supporters hoped it would mark a turning point in protecting children from the harmful effects of excessive online engagement.
Instead, early research suggests the law is facing significant resistance from the very group it was designed to protect.
A new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that nearly three-quarters of Australian teenagers aged 14 and 15 continue to use social media despite the ban. The study suggests that social pressure, fear of missing out (FOMO), and perceptions about popularity are proving more powerful than legal restrictions.
Most teenagers stay on social media because most of their friends
are still there. If three-quarters of teenagers were truly off social
media, staying offline could become the norm. The challenge is getting to that tipping point…
Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor and co-author of the study, spoke about why the ban is struggling and what governments might learn from the Australian experience.
Q: Why does the ban appear to be falling short of expectations?
Sunstein: One of the most obvious reasons is that young teenagers have little incentive to comply.
There are no meaningful penalties for violating the ban and no rewards for following it. From the perspective of a 14- or 15-year-old, the law may simply feel like background noise.
Another important factor is social exclusion. Most teenagers believe their peers are still using social media.
If they leave these platforms while everyone else remains active, they risk feeling disconnected from their social circles.
The study also found that those who ignore the ban are often viewed as part of the socially connected group, while those who comply can be perceived as outsiders. That’s a powerful dynamic for teenagers.
Q: Were you surprised by the extent of non-compliance?
Sunstein: The scale certainly surprised me.
I expected some level of resistance, but the magnitude of the violations is remarkably high. What’s particularly striking is how much stronger social norms appear to be than the legal restriction itself.
We’ve seen situations where laws successfully shape behaviour, but we’ve also seen cases where social expectations dominate. In this instance, the evidence suggests that peer influence is overwhelmingly powerful. The fact that this effect is so visible and measurable makes the findings especially noteworthy.
Q: Many teenagers cited fear of missing out as a major reason for staying online. Why is FOMO so important?
Sunstein: Fear of missing out is one of the most powerful social forces we know, yet it remains surprisingly understudied.
We’re conducting related research in the United States examining why people continue to use platforms such as Instagram and TikTok even when they don’t particularly like them.
Many students tell us that if they could press a button and make these platforms disappear, they would. Yet as long as everyone else is using them, they feel compelled to remain connected.
This illustrates the extraordinary power of group inclusion. People often invest their time and attention in activities they don’t necessarily enjoy simply because participation has become socially expected.
The Australian findings reflect the same phenomenon. Young people may recognise some of the negative effects of social media, but they remain online because their friends remain online.
That’s an important lesson for policymakers. It’s not enough to focus on the individual. You also have to address the social environment.
Q: Your study suggests that compliance must reach a tipping point before the ban becomes effective. What does that mean?
Sunstein: Based on self-reported responses, we estimate that around three-quarters of teenagers would need to stop using social media before remaining offline became the social norm.
Now, self-reported data isn’t perfect, but it offers a useful indication.
We have seen similar social tipping points in other areas. Smoking rates in the United States have fallen dramatically over the past few decades. Drinking habits have also changed among younger generations.
There was a time when refusing alcohol might have made someone seem timid or socially awkward. Today, that perception has shifted significantly.
The same principle could apply to social media. If usage drops sufficiently, staying offline could become normal rather than unusual.
Once behaviour reaches that critical mass, change can accelerate rapidly.
Q: How could governments move society closer to that tipping point?
Sunstein: Education campaigns could play a major role. If people begin hearing that more of their peers are spending less time on social media, that perception itself can help create change. Emerging norms often become self-fulfilling.
A public campaign could emphasise the benefits of reduced screen time, stronger face-to-face relationships, better mental wellbeing, and the value of real-world experiences.
Importantly, such campaigns shouldn’t merely tell young people what not to do. They should offer a positive vision of what life looks like without constant digital engagement.
Q: One of the study’s most striking findings was that teenagers who obeyed the ban were often seen as “uncool.” Why does that matter?
Sunstein: Because social meaning matters enormously.
Take seatbelts as an example. Today, wearing a seatbelt signals responsibility and common sense. But decades ago, it could signal fearfulness or suggest that the driver wasn’t trusted.
The meaning of behaviours changes over time, often without individuals controlling it.
The same appears to be happening with social media. At the moment, being offline carries a social label among many teenagers. The data suggests that students who stay off social media are often perceived as belonging to less popular groups.
That creates a major obstacle for policymakers. If complying with the law damages a teenager’s social standing, many will choose social acceptance over legal compliance.
Q: What reforms could make the policy more effective?
Sunstein: There are several possibilities. One is a sustained public awareness campaign aimed specifically at teenagers. It could highlight the benefits of spending less time online and encourage more in-person interaction.
A second option would be incentives.
This might sound unconventional, but symbolic rewards can sometimes be very effective. Free concert tickets, discounts, access to special events or other benefits could encourage participation. The reward doesn’t necessarily need substantial monetary value. Often the symbolic value matters more.
A third possibility is adjusting the policy itself.
Our research found that around two-thirds of respondents preferred time limits over outright bans. Time restrictions may be easier for teenagers to accept and could reduce the fear of missing out because they would still have some access.
Such an approach is not without drawbacks, but it deserves serious consideration.
Q: Is a blanket ban the best solution, or are there alternative approaches?
Sunstein: I don’t believe this is an impossible problem.
Governments have numerous tools available beyond simple prohibition. They can launch campaigns aimed at changing the social meaning of being offline. They can recruit influential young role models who can credibly say, “I’m happier spending less time on social media.”
Parents can also play an important role. Public campaigns directed at families could encourage collective action rather than leaving individual teenagers to make difficult choices alone.
Governments could also work more closely with social media companies. Australia’s law allows for penalties if platforms fail to take reasonable steps to enforce restrictions, but enforcement so far appears relatively soft.
The key point is that we now have a clearer understanding of why teenagers are not complying.
The challenge is no longer simply identifying the problem. It is designing policies that recognise the enormous influence of peer pressure, social identity and belonging.
As Australia’s experience demonstrates, changing behaviour requires more than passing a law. It requires changing the social norms that shape everyday choices. – Science X
