When the Federal Government announced some 4.7 million accounts had been shut down in the wake of the Social Media Minimum Age legislation in December, it raised more questions than answers – namely, which platforms were there 4.7 million kids on?

We knew at that time that Meta had booted 544,052 accounts: 330,649 on Instagram, 173,497 on Facebook, and 39,916 from Threads.

That left some 4.2 million accounts on other platforms.

Today, Snapchat revealed they had locked or disabled more than 415,000 under-16 accounts in Australia, so we’re now wondering where the other 3.8 million are – surely not just YouTube and TikTok? Time will tell.

In providing their update today, Snapchat also outlined their continued compliance efforts, saying they continue to lock more accounts daily – I can personally vouch for this, as I’m aware of at least one teen kicked off in recent weeks.

However, they say, “We are finding that the law’s current implementation approach still leaves significant gaps that could undermine its goals.”

They are primarily twofold: “First, there are real technical limitations to accurate and dependable age verification. The Australian government’s own trial, published in 2025, found that available age estimation technology was only accurate to within 2-3 years on average. In practice, this means some young people under 16 may be able to bypass protections, potentially leaving them with reduced safeguards, while others over 16 may incorrectly lose access.“

And “Second, the current approach lacks industry-wide protections, leaving vulnerabilities with hundreds of other apps that are either not in scope of this law or where it is unclear. Young people won’t stop communicating when they lose access to regulated services. Over 75% of the time spent on Snapchat in Australia is messaging with close friends and family. We’re concerned that when young people are cut off from these communication tools, some may turn to alternative messaging services that are not being regulated — services that may be less well-known and offer fewer safety protections than Snapchat provides. While we don’t yet have data to quantify this shift, it’s a risk that deserves serious consideration as policymakers evaluate whether the law is achieving its intended outcomes.“

Pause for a moment on that stat. 75% of the time spent on Snapchat is messaging. It kinda feeds into the company’s original argument that they are a messaging app, and checks out with most teens who aren’t creating content or scrolling through content on the platform, instead – it’s how they chat with mates.

Snapchat, like Meta, is looking to push this problem onto Google and Apple, something neither platform provider is keen on.

While parental controls and age limits can be enforced on an App Store basis, neither operating system maker wants to be the single source of this level of enforcement. Unfortunately for both, with governments around the world looking at this level of restriction, it may come down to it.

Critically also, Snapchat stands by their objection to the approach being taken in Australia.

“We want to be clear: we still don’t believe an outright ban for those under 16 is the right approach. We understand the Australian government’s objectives and share the goal of protecting young people online. But in the case of Snapchat—which is primarily a messaging app used by young people to stay connected with close friends and family—we do not believe that cutting teens off from these relationships makes them safer, happier, or otherwise better off. We fundamentally disagree that Snapchat is an in-scope age-restricted social media platform.“

A full review of the SMMA legislation will be fascinating, because you cannot argue that the Australian Government has changed the approach from all these companies, so perhaps in 12-18 months a re-think will see a more comprehensive way forward that isn’t riddled with workarounds and technological failures – like face scanning.