Australia is edging closer to a landmark policy that would bar anyone aged 16 and below from accessing major social media platforms — a move set to reshape how young people communicate, learn, and spend time online.
The nationwide restriction is scheduled to come into force on December 10, 2025, shifting most of the compliance burden to technology firms and social platforms.
Under the new rules, anyone aged 16 or younger will no longer be permitted to create or maintain accounts on major services such as YouTube, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and Kick.
As government leaders push the proposal forward, marketers are bracing for the ripple effects across digital behaviour, online safety, and the broader media ecosystem.
With that in mind, MARKETECH APAC spoke exclusively with Nathan Powell, chief product and strategy officer at Fabulate; Stuart Hood, executive director of social & content at Havas Red; Alex Robinson, head of social, creative and content, Australia at TEAM LEWIS; as well as WiredCo.’s Steph Edwards, head of social content & creative, and David Kennedy, managing director & partner, to discuss how brands can adapt to this new regulation and explore alternative ways marketers can connect genuinely to these younger audiences.
Social media ban: justified or not?
When asked whether the social media ban was justified, there are mixed reactions from the marketing leaders regarding this. Some argued that the ban itself comes with good intentions for younger audiences, while others argue that the ban only means people will move to other unregulated channels.
For TEAM LEWIS’ Alex, the ban is justified, and that this move isn’t merely to restrict the younger audiences but rather a ‘delay’ until the right time they can use it responsibly.
“I’m a parent of two kids, one 11 and one 8, so this has a very real effect on my life, and I think the ban is a good call. It’s not really a ban in the usual sense, it’s a delay. The same way we delay driving, alcohol or anything designed for adults. Giving kids a bit more time before they enter these platforms is a positive,” he said.
Meanwhile, Havas Red’s Stuart notes that this ban ensures their kids are protected from whatever harm might come their way, and with the rise of online bullying, the ban is necessary to protect younger social media users.
“Unfortunately, we’ve seen many cases with those under (and we’d also add, over 16) being directly targeted, picked on and negatively affected across social media. Online bullying has had a huge impact on Aussie kids and this is a good step in the right direction to help curb the negative side of social,” he said.
On the other hand, WiredCo.’s Steph and David note that while they believe that Australia’s social ban comes from a well-intentioned place, aiming to create a safer digital environment for young people, the practical reality is more complex. They also added that restricting access rarely eliminates behavior, it simply displaces it.
“While we’d agree that reducing exposure to harmful content is important, enforcing age limits at scale is difficult and likely will drive young people toward other online spaces,” they said.
On a stronger note, Fabulate’s Nathan had a stronger opinion on the ban, stating that the ban simply won’t work, citing a recent survey where 67% of voters support the ban, yet only 35% believe social platforms can enforce it.
“Blocking under 16s from platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat or YouTube is being framed as a bold act of protection. But in reality this is a policy that photographs well yet performs poorly…People like the idea of protecting young people, but they also recognise that a ban does not change behaviour. It simply moves it,” he explained.
Will this deter future marketing campaigns for younger audiences?
While there is uncertainty on whether this social media ban will deter marketers from creating campaigns that resonate with younger audiences, marketers agree that brands can create new ways to engage with these demographics.
According to Nathan, direct targeting becomes harder, but cultural relevance becomes far more important. Moreover, teens have always moved faster than policymakers, and they will continue to find new digital spaces to occupy.
“For the very small number of campaigns aimed at younger cohorts, the reality is that teens will still be influenced by what they see on their parents’ accounts anyway. Parents have always been part of the influence ecosystem, and this policy simply formalises what was already happening in practice,” he said.
Meanwhile, Stuart stated that while the young users can still view content without logging in, they won’t receive personalised feeds or interact with posts, which means engagement and conversion rates in some areas will drop significantly.
“We expect to see those brands who lean into a youth audience to struggle initially, especially those in fashion, gaming, entertainment, and FMCG to a lesser degree, which rely heavily on viral campaigns and teen influencers. Many brands will need to adapt and look to activations, school partnerships, and family-oriented campaigns to maintain relevance, with this audience,” he explained.
This was similarly echoed by Alex, stating that this social media ban doesn’t “kill” youth marketing–and that kids aren’t disappearing, they’re just in different places.
“Yes, we won’t have as much data on the under-16s usage on these banned channels, so content strategies will need to adjust. But marketers have survived far bigger shifts, this is just the next one and the smartest ones will find ways to not just adapt, but thrive,” he said.
The continued quest of parents as gatekeepers
With the ban in place, all marketers agreed that the parents will become the new ‘gatekeepers’ for campaigns that will target their young children. While it is commonly understood that parents have the obligation to keep their children safe from the negative side of the internet, marketers agree that moving forward, previous teen-centric campaigns will transition to more family-centric ones.
“For brands, this reinforces the need for a broad audience strategy: teens will continue to drive culture and trends, but parents ultimately make many of the key decisions across categories like technology, entertainment, fashion and lifestyle. And reaching both groups effectively doesn’t come from hyper-targeting, it comes from compelling creative storytelling,” both Steph and David said.
Meanwhile, Stuart highlighted four key adjustments on this: positioning products as family-friendly and safe, using trust-building content, leveraging parent-focused channels, and tapping into values-driven marketing.
“This is an opportunity to build long-term loyalty with families, which can influence purchasing decisions well beyond the teen years,” he stated.
For Alex, this means that brands should focus more on targeting more of their campaigns towards both children and their parents, noting this shift needed following the ban.
“Brands will need to speak to both sides. Give kids the fun, the identity, and the creativity they want. And give parents the reassurance they need. Safety. Learning. Confidence. Wellbeing. Value for money. This isn’t a massive change, it’s just a shift in how you tell the story. Make it something parents feel good about endorsing and something kids feel proud to use or have,” he explained.
This is also something that Nathan expanded, where he mentioned that parents are not just gatekeepers in a moral sense; they are becoming algorithmic gatekeepers. Their choices influence which platforms remain part of family life and, by extension, which brand messages their children will still be exposed to.
“When we map this against how teenagers actually consume content, the picture becomes even clearer. A ban does not eliminate exposure to branded content; it simply changes where that exposure takes place. Teens will continue to encounter brand messages through the content that surfaces on their parents’ accounts, through shared devices and family screens and through older siblings’ feeds. This is why the fear that brands will suddenly “lose” an entire generation is misplaced. Teens will keep seeing branded content, just not always on their own accounts,” he explained.
Nathan also noted that rather than reshaping the industry, the ban simply adds another layer of conversation between parents and their children about what is appropriate online.
“It does not meaningfully change how creator marketing works, how social algorithms function or how brands plan their campaigns,” he said.
What’s next for influencer marketing–post ban?
For Steph and David, although new regulations may disrupt traditional influencer marketing, they note that teen creators will continue to find ways to exert influence, often through parent-run or family accounts, alternate platforms, or by migrating into smaller, closed communities such as private messaging apps and invite-only groups.
“For brands, this means that relying solely on public-feed influencers will no longer be enough, especially when creators under 16 may face restrictions or reduced visibility. Instead, brands will need to embrace micro-communities, private-group outreach, parent-aware messaging and carefully managed influencer collaborations that feel authentic within these more contained environments,” they said.
Meanwhile, Alex states that while younger creators will lose some visibility and you’ll definitely see agencies exploring workarounds, the bigger change is in who brands will rely on.
“The key thing here is this: kids won’t have accounts, but that doesn’t stop them from seeing content. They’ll still encounter creators through YouTube, gaming platforms, streaming platforms, shared devices at home, school laptops, outdoor ads, and culture in general. Influence leaks into every channel. It doesn’t sit inside one app. That’s why older creators, family creators and passion-based creators will still matter,” he explained.
Speaking of these changes, Stuart noted of the following shifts that brands can take on their influencer marketing strategies following the ban rollout:
- Shift to adult or family influencers: Brands will collaborate with influencers who appeal to both parents and older teens (16–18), creating multi-generational campaigns.
- Rise of “parent influencers”: Parenting and family lifestyle creators will become key ambassadors for products aimed at younger audiences.
- Content strategy overhaul: Messaging will move from “relatable teen content” to family-oriented narratives or aspirational content for older teens.
- Potential migration of creators: Some young influencers are already considering relocating overseas to maintain their careers, which could reduce local influencer diversity, but this comes with a whole set of new challenges, not least their schooling
Lastly for Nathan, he states that the instinctive reaction is to assume the ban will disrupt creator marketing, particularly for categories that have historically used teen creators. But when we look at the actual data, the scale of the issue becomes far smaller than the noise surrounding it.
He then added that the overwhelming majority of creator marketing simply does not target people under sixteen, and the audiences that brands care about are largely unaffected.
“Cultural relevance remains the true currency of influence, and creators over eighteen who speak fluently to youth culture will continue to bridge the gap effortlessly. If anything, the policy reinforces a trend already underway: brands will lean more heavily into adult creators with strong teen followings and into cultural formats that transcend age brackets,” he concluded.
***
As Australia prepares to implement the under-16 social media ban, marketers face a future where long-standing digital playbooks will no longer apply. Reaching young audiences will demand a shift toward alternative channels, more responsible data practices, and stronger collaboration with parents, schools, and youth-focused organisations.
While the policy raises uncertainties, it also opens the door for brands to rethink how they build trust, creativity, and relevance in an environment where direct access to younger users is no longer guaranteed. The next phase of youth marketing in Australia will belong to those prepared to adapt early — and ethically — to a very different digital landscape.
Australia’s social media ban for minors looms around the corner–here’s what local marketers are saying about it
-
December 9, 2025
Australia is edging closer to a landmark policy that would bar anyone aged 16 and below from accessing major social media platforms — a move set to reshape how young people communicate, learn, and spend time online.
The nationwide restriction is scheduled to come into force on December 10, 2025, shifting most of the compliance burden to technology firms and social platforms.
Under the new rules, anyone aged 16 or younger will no longer be permitted to create or maintain accounts on major services such as YouTube, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and Kick.
As government leaders push the proposal forward, marketers are bracing for the ripple effects across digital behaviour, online safety, and the broader media ecosystem.
With that in mind, MARKETECH APAC spoke exclusively with Nathan Powell, chief product and strategy officer at Fabulate; Stuart Hood, executive director of social & content at Havas Red; Alex Robinson, head of social, creative and content, Australia at TEAM LEWIS; as well as WiredCo.’s Steph Edwards, head of social content & creative, and David Kennedy, managing director & partner, to discuss how brands can adapt to this new regulation and explore alternative ways marketers can connect genuinely to these younger audiences.
Social media ban: justified or not?
When asked whether the social media ban was justified, there are mixed reactions from the marketing leaders regarding this. Some argued that the ban itself comes with good intentions for younger audiences, while others argue that the ban only means people will move to other unregulated channels.
For TEAM LEWIS’ Alex, the ban is justified, and that this move isn’t merely to restrict the younger audiences but rather a ‘delay’ until the right time they can use it responsibly.
“I’m a parent of two kids, one 11 and one 8, so this has a very real effect on my life, and I think the ban is a good call. It’s not really a ban in the usual sense, it’s a delay. The same way we delay driving, alcohol or anything designed for adults. Giving kids a bit more time before they enter these platforms is a positive,” he said.
Meanwhile, Havas Red’s Stuart notes that this ban ensures their kids are protected from whatever harm might come their way, and with the rise of online bullying, the ban is necessary to protect younger social media users.
“Unfortunately, we’ve seen many cases with those under (and we’d also add, over 16) being directly targeted, picked on and negatively affected across social media. Online bullying has had a huge impact on Aussie kids and this is a good step in the right direction to help curb the negative side of social,” he said.
On the other hand, WiredCo.’s Steph and David note that while they believe that Australia’s social ban comes from a well-intentioned place, aiming to create a safer digital environment for young people, the practical reality is more complex. They also added that restricting access rarely eliminates behavior, it simply displaces it.
“While we’d agree that reducing exposure to harmful content is important, enforcing age limits at scale is difficult and likely will drive young people toward other online spaces,” they said.
On a stronger note, Fabulate’s Nathan had a stronger opinion on the ban, stating that the ban simply won’t work, citing a recent survey where 67% of voters support the ban, yet only 35% believe social platforms can enforce it.
“Blocking under 16s from platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat or YouTube is being framed as a bold act of protection. But in reality this is a policy that photographs well yet performs poorly…People like the idea of protecting young people, but they also recognise that a ban does not change behaviour. It simply moves it,” he explained.
Will this deter future marketing campaigns for younger audiences?
While there is uncertainty on whether this social media ban will deter marketers from creating campaigns that resonate with younger audiences, marketers agree that brands can create new ways to engage with these demographics.
According to Nathan, direct targeting becomes harder, but cultural relevance becomes far more important. Moreover, teens have always moved faster than policymakers, and they will continue to find new digital spaces to occupy.
“For the very small number of campaigns aimed at younger cohorts, the reality is that teens will still be influenced by what they see on their parents’ accounts anyway. Parents have always been part of the influence ecosystem, and this policy simply formalises what was already happening in practice,” he said.
Meanwhile, Stuart stated that while the young users can still view content without logging in, they won’t receive personalised feeds or interact with posts, which means engagement and conversion rates in some areas will drop significantly.
“We expect to see those brands who lean into a youth audience to struggle initially, especially those in fashion, gaming, entertainment, and FMCG to a lesser degree, which rely heavily on viral campaigns and teen influencers. Many brands will need to adapt and look to activations, school partnerships, and family-oriented campaigns to maintain relevance, with this audience,” he explained.
This was similarly echoed by Alex, stating that this social media ban doesn’t “kill” youth marketing–and that kids aren’t disappearing, they’re just in different places.
“Yes, we won’t have as much data on the under-16s usage on these banned channels, so content strategies will need to adjust. But marketers have survived far bigger shifts, this is just the next one and the smartest ones will find ways to not just adapt, but thrive,” he said.
The continued quest of parents as gatekeepers
With the ban in place, all marketers agreed that the parents will become the new ‘gatekeepers’ for campaigns that will target their young children. While it is commonly understood that parents have the obligation to keep their children safe from the negative side of the internet, marketers agree that moving forward, previous teen-centric campaigns will transition to more family-centric ones.
“For brands, this reinforces the need for a broad audience strategy: teens will continue to drive culture and trends, but parents ultimately make many of the key decisions across categories like technology, entertainment, fashion and lifestyle. And reaching both groups effectively doesn’t come from hyper-targeting, it comes from compelling creative storytelling,” both Steph and David said.
Meanwhile, Stuart highlighted four key adjustments on this: positioning products as family-friendly and safe, using trust-building content, leveraging parent-focused channels, and tapping into values-driven marketing.
“This is an opportunity to build long-term loyalty with families, which can influence purchasing decisions well beyond the teen years,” he stated.
For Alex, this means that brands should focus more on targeting more of their campaigns towards both children and their parents, noting this shift needed following the ban.
“Brands will need to speak to both sides. Give kids the fun, the identity, and the creativity they want. And give parents the reassurance they need. Safety. Learning. Confidence. Wellbeing. Value for money. This isn’t a massive change, it’s just a shift in how you tell the story. Make it something parents feel good about endorsing and something kids feel proud to use or have,” he explained.
This is also something that Nathan expanded, where he mentioned that parents are not just gatekeepers in a moral sense; they are becoming algorithmic gatekeepers. Their choices influence which platforms remain part of family life and, by extension, which brand messages their children will still be exposed to.
“When we map this against how teenagers actually consume content, the picture becomes even clearer. A ban does not eliminate exposure to branded content; it simply changes where that exposure takes place. Teens will continue to encounter brand messages through the content that surfaces on their parents’ accounts, through shared devices and family screens and through older siblings’ feeds. This is why the fear that brands will suddenly “lose” an entire generation is misplaced. Teens will keep seeing branded content, just not always on their own accounts,” he explained.
Nathan also noted that rather than reshaping the industry, the ban simply adds another layer of conversation between parents and their children about what is appropriate online.
“It does not meaningfully change how creator marketing works, how social algorithms function or how brands plan their campaigns,” he said.
What’s next for influencer marketing–post ban?
For Steph and David, although new regulations may disrupt traditional influencer marketing, they note that teen creators will continue to find ways to exert influence, often through parent-run or family accounts, alternate platforms, or by migrating into smaller, closed communities such as private messaging apps and invite-only groups.
“For brands, this means that relying solely on public-feed influencers will no longer be enough, especially when creators under 16 may face restrictions or reduced visibility. Instead, brands will need to embrace micro-communities, private-group outreach, parent-aware messaging and carefully managed influencer collaborations that feel authentic within these more contained environments,” they said.
Meanwhile, Alex states that while younger creators will lose some visibility and you’ll definitely see agencies exploring workarounds, the bigger change is in who brands will rely on.
“The key thing here is this: kids won’t have accounts, but that doesn’t stop them from seeing content. They’ll still encounter creators through YouTube, gaming platforms, streaming platforms, shared devices at home, school laptops, outdoor ads, and culture in general. Influence leaks into every channel. It doesn’t sit inside one app. That’s why older creators, family creators and passion-based creators will still matter,” he explained.
Speaking of these changes, Stuart noted of the following shifts that brands can take on their influencer marketing strategies following the ban rollout:
Lastly for Nathan, he states that the instinctive reaction is to assume the ban will disrupt creator marketing, particularly for categories that have historically used teen creators. But when we look at the actual data, the scale of the issue becomes far smaller than the noise surrounding it.
He then added that the overwhelming majority of creator marketing simply does not target people under sixteen, and the audiences that brands care about are largely unaffected.
“Cultural relevance remains the true currency of influence, and creators over eighteen who speak fluently to youth culture will continue to bridge the gap effortlessly. If anything, the policy reinforces a trend already underway: brands will lean more heavily into adult creators with strong teen followings and into cultural formats that transcend age brackets,” he concluded.
***
As Australia prepares to implement the under-16 social media ban, marketers face a future where long-standing digital playbooks will no longer apply. Reaching young audiences will demand a shift toward alternative channels, more responsible data practices, and stronger collaboration with parents, schools, and youth-focused organisations.
While the policy raises uncertainties, it also opens the door for brands to rethink how they build trust, creativity, and relevance in an environment where direct access to younger users is no longer guaranteed. The next phase of youth marketing in Australia will belong to those prepared to adapt early — and ethically — to a very different digital landscape.
Related Articles
Featured Articles
Most Recent Articles
Subscribe Now