New Zealand is set to follow Australia in banning social media for children under 16 years old with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon set to introduce the bill if he gets re-elected in November.
Luxon’s proposed law would see platforms including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook to be fined up to 10 per cent of their global revenue for failing to meet their obligations of taking “reasonable steps” to check users are not aged 16 and under.
However, while the proposal has broad support from social media and digital agencies on both sides of the Ditch, there are concerns that the teens will find workarounds and potentially move to platforms with fewer protections.
Lisa East, MD of digital marketing agency Matter, told B&T that as a the owner of an agency and the mother of a teenager she supports “the intention behind the legislation”.
However, East believes “good intentions don’t automatically equal good outcomes if we treat a ban as our only line of defence”.
“Looking at Australia’s experience, recent data shows that more 8 in 10 young Australians are still active on social media despite the ban. Right now, the legislation is clearly not having the effect that was intended.”
And she’s not wrong.
In June this year, research from Pureprofile found most teenagers aged 16 and under are still accessing social media platforms covered by the country’s ban, despite public support for the policy sitting at 76 per cent.
The study surveyed 1,025 parents, teachers and young Australians, and suggests enforcement has fallen heavily on families, with more than half of parents saying they have tried to uphold the restrictions at home, resulting in “overwhelming pressure”.
While support for the ban continues to be high, two in five (41 per cent) of under-16s say they’ve tried to get around the ban, with 43 per cent of parents saying their children have made an attempt.
“Part of the problem is that, practically speaking, enforcement is really hard,” East told B&T.
“Teens can get around controls and some platforms, YouTube for example, don’t even require an account to view content. If we’re serious about protecting kids, we have to be honest about how hard a ban actually is to police and put other safeguards in place.”
She believes what’s needed for the country is “open conversation at home and school, and more comprehensive education around digital life skills”.
The law’s passing in Australia has also caused some brands to adapt and alter their digital media strategies. According to UNSW Business School academic Carmen Leong, Frank Green and White Fox Boutique have re-embraced the physical world after access to teenagers was curtailed.
“Some of the brands, for example, the White Fox Boutique, a fashion retailer, and Frank Green, are going from all the way from the digital world, coming back to the physical world, to having more events, more fans, activities offline,” she explained in a blog post.
That said, Fabulate’s chief product and strategy officer Nathan Powell told B&T at the end of 2025 that only “a slither” of the market.
“The creators who actually influence teenagers at scale are overwhelmingly adults. They may speak fluently to youth culture, but they are over 18, professionally managed and already operating within the existing brand safety and compliance ecosystem,” he said.
“So when we ask how many creators with substantial teen audiences are impacted, the honest answer is very few.”
Speaking with B&T, the founder and creative director of New Zealand marketing agency, MYCM Agency, Marta Yortt, believes the change is “absolutely needed”.
“The numbers Luxon presented are hard to ignore. One in three 13 to 17-year-olds spending five or more hours a day on social media should concern us all, and so should what they can be exposed to in that time,” she said.
“Age gates today are barely gates at all, while issues around appearance, bullying, harassment and the way young people learn to see themselves are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.”
However, she also believes the ban itself won’t solve everything.
“Australia’s experience so far suggests that restricting access doesn’t necessarily mean young people disappear from social media altogether,” she said. “Workarounds exist, and there is also the risk of young people moving to smaller, less moderated platforms where protections may be even weaker.”
Yortt said the burden must “shift much more heavily towards the platforms and their social responsibility”.
Along with the platforms, she believes governments, educators and families all have a role to play.
“Agencies and brands are not bystanders here – we fund these platforms, and we have more influence over how they behave than we often admit,” she said. “We need age assurance that genuinely works rather than compliance treated as a checkbox.”
B&T also spoke with David Bull, group account director and Anna Barham Kumar, head of content & social at creative agency Communicado who also “welcome” the ban.
However, the pair admit they are “wary of any policy that’s being postponed as “case closed” on an issue that’s more nuanced than just removing younger users.”
“Australia’s ban has been live since December, and a review by eSaftey found that more than eight in ten under 16s were still logged on months later,” they told B&T.
“Social media can be an incredibly powerful tool for connection, information and creativity, but these platforms are also doing real harm to young people.
“What I’d want to see alongside New Zealand’s version of the ban, is a better verification tool and a commitment to fixing the core issues on problematic social media platforms.”
