Australia is doubling fines on tech companies to nearly $100 million for failing to keep kids off social media—but six months in, 85 percent of underage users are still scrolling, exposing the limits of government fixes that American politicians are now scrambling to copy.

The real question isn't whether social media harms kids. It does. It's whether handing more power to government regulators or restoring parental authority is the answer—and Australia's experiment is proving the regulators can't deliver.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Saturday that the maximum penalty for systematic violations of the under-16 social media ban will jump from A$49.5 million to A$99 million. The government is also expanding the eSafety Commissioner's power to compel evidence from platforms and third parties such as age-verification and app store providers. Albanese said Big Tech is "not doing enough to comply with the law – there are still too many children on social media."

He's right about the result. A study published this month in the British Medical Journal, surveying 408 adolescents, found that 85 percent of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still using social media three months after the ban took effect December 10. Two-thirds of underage users stayed online by simply self-declaring an age over 16 or uploading a selfie the platform accepted. According to the University of Newcastle researchers, only 5 percent of 12- to 13-year-olds and 11 percent of 14- to 15-year-olds were ever asked for official ID. The study concluded the law produced "limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention."

The government counters that more than 5 million under-16 accounts have been deactivated or restricted. Communications Minister Anika Wells accused platforms of "adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by." The eSafety Commissioner is currently investigating five platforms—Meta's Instagram and Facebook, Google's YouTube, Snap's Snapchat, and TikTok—for possible non-compliance.

The global copycat machine is already running. Britain has announced plans for an "Australia-plus" ban starting in 2027, with additional restrictions on gaming and live-streaming. France has passed under-15 legislation with parental consent provisions. Slovenia, Poland, Spain, Denmark, and Malaysia are considering similar proposals.

The framing split between outlets is telling. CNBC emphasized the enforcement crackdown and "global momentum" narrative. The Guardian gave more space to the research exposing the ban's failure, including the specific finding that the vast majority of teens were never asked for real identification. Both outlets buried the free speech challenge: Reddit is fighting the ban in Australia's highest court, arguing it violates expression rights.

For Americans, the stakes are direct. Every regulatory apparatus built abroad becomes a template for domestic lawmakers who prefer hearings to hard choices. The question isn't whether social media companies are bad actors—they are. It's whether the cure is a government age-gate that doesn't work and hands regulators power over who may speak, or something harder to legislate: a culture that expects parents to take the phone away.

Australia just proved the ban doesn't work. Whether the lesson Americans take is more government or less is the open fight.