Meta reports that it has deleted 756,000 accounts belonging to Australian teenagers, yet the majority of users under 16 still remain active online.

      Meta has disabled 756,000 Australian accounts that it believes belonged to individuals under the age of 16, a statistic it shared as the country’s pioneering social media ban transitions from being a threat to actual enforcement. The company reported that 462,000 of these accounts were on Instagram and 294,000 on Facebook, all of which were deactivated between December 2025 and June 2026.

      While this is a notable number that captures headlines, Meta appears to want it interpreted as a demonstration of good intentions. The problem, however, is that a high account removal count does not necessarily indicate whether the policy is genuinely preventing teenagers from accessing the platforms, which is the primary goal of this initiative. A company can eliminate numerous accounts yet still struggle with the overarching challenge, especially if those accounts are continually being re-created.

      The ban officially started on December 10, 2025, making Australia the first country to entirely prohibit under-16s from engaging with mainstream social media. The regulations apply to Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and other platforms, placing the responsibility for compliance on the companies rather than on parents.

      In theory, this represents a bold regulatory approach. However, initial evidence paints a less favorable picture since Australia has already accused Meta, TikTok, and YouTube of failing to comply as regulators express impatience with the industry's progress. The disparity between the statistics and the actual situation is glaring. Independent research and government data indicate that over 80% of under-16s continued to use social media during the first three months of the ban, suggesting the deleted accounts represent only a small fraction of the teenagers who are genuinely online.

      This situation is not particularly surprising to those familiar with how teenagers respond to rules they find unappealing. Fabricating a birthday, using an adult’s information, or creating a new account can be done in minutes, meaning the ban is much more effective in theory than in practice.

      Meta maintains that it is applying substantial technological efforts to this issue. The company claims to use AI to examine profiles for contextual indicators, like the revealing birthday post or references to school grades, and combines this with photo-based age-estimation software that attempts to assess a user’s age based on their appearance. Additionally, the company utilizes behavioral signals to infer age based on activity patterns typically associated with younger users. When an account is deleted, Meta states it inhibits attempts to recreate it, recognizing that determined teenagers will continue to try.

      However, this kind of age estimation is notoriously inaccurate and often errs in a manner that is least embarrassing for the platform. A system confident enough to remove 750,000 accounts is also one that is making many judgment calls regarding people’s faces and behaviors.

      In response, Canberra has opted for stricter measures. Australia has implemented increased penalties and empowered its regulatory body, raising the maximum fine for non-compliance to approximately A$99 million (about $69.75 million), while granting officials additional powers to demand internal documentation.

      These powers are significant because they alter the nature of the pressure. Asking a platform how many accounts it has removed is different from obliging it to provide evidence of its knowledge and timing, which is more challenging to present in a press release.

      The political climate has become tense as executives from Meta, Google’s YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat have testified before parliament, all eager to display diligence while pushing back against the notion that the enforcement of the ban lies solely with them. Their performances have not completely assuaged lawmakers, who are becoming increasingly cautious of receiving reassurances rather than tangible results.

      Moreover, the legislative matters are still in flux, as the Senate has postponed the measure that campaigners believed would tighten the regulations. For now, Australia finds itself with a landmark law, an impressive removal count, and a resilient majority of teenagers who, according to virtually all available metrics, never truly departed in the first place.