Snapchat CEO Slams Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban as Flawed

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel has publicly pushed back against Australia’s sweeping social media ban for users under 16, calling the legislation flawed and questioning whether it will actually make teenagers safer online. In a op-ed published in the Financial Times, Spiegel argued that while Snapchat is complying with the law, compliance alone does not guarantee better outcomes for young Australians.

Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age law, which came into effect in December 2025, bans anyone under 16 from designated platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. Snap Newsroom The legislation is widely regarded as a world-first, and governments across Europe, Asia, and beyond are watching closely as they weigh similar restrictions.

A Heavy Blow to Snapchat

Of all the platforms affected, Snapchat is arguably the worst impacted due to its popularity among younger audiences. The company has removed or restricted 415,000 Australian teen accounts as a result of the new laws. Social Media Today While that represents a fraction of Snap’s global daily active user base, it signals a significant hit to its local market and sets a worrying precedent if other nations follow suit.

Spiegel’s Core Argument

Spiegel’s criticism centers on gaps in the law’s design and enforcement. He argues the ban may push teens toward lesser-known platforms with fewer safety protections, that imperfect age-estimation technology could lead to incorrect age verification, and that the policy may ultimately harm adolescent well-being. Bedrockprinciple Instead, Spiegel advocates for age verification at the app store level rather than individual platforms, arguing this would create a more consistent, privacy-respecting standard across the entire digital ecosystem.

Meanwhile, many Australian teens have already found workarounds, turning to alternative platforms not yet covered by the ban, or using VPNs and parents’ accounts to continue accessing social media. CNBC Critics suggest this undermines the law’s effectiveness and raises serious questions about whether the ban is achieving its child safety goals — or simply pushing risk further underground.