Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s: A Progress Report and Lingering Questions
Nearly four months after Australia implemented its groundbreaking social media ban for individuals under the age of 16, the nation’s online safety regulator has released its inaugural detailed compliance update. This report arrives at a critical juncture, with numerous countries closely observing the efficacy of this world-first policy. Since the ban came into effect on December 10 last year, the conversation surrounding it has extended far beyond Australia’s shores, with journalists from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and beyond expressing keen interest. The perennial questions on everyone’s lips remain consistent: how successful is the ban, and are children still managing to access social media platforms?
The newly released report presents a complex and nuanced picture, while simultaneously leaving several key questions regarding the social media ban unanswered.
Areas of Compliance Concern
The report acknowledges that social media companies have indeed undertaken “some steps” to adhere to the social media legislation, which restricts account holders to those aged 16 and over. By mid-January, approximately 4.7 million accounts had been removed, with an additional 310,000 accounts purged by early March. These figures, while substantial, are accompanied by significant areas of concern highlighted within the report.
The report specifically flags “compliance concerns” across four critical domains:
- Messaging Encouraging Age Assurance Circumvention: On certain platforms, messaging directed at individuals under 16 has reportedly encouraged them to attempt age assurance processes, even after they had declared themselves to be underage. This suggests a potential loophole or design flaw that actively facilitates attempts to bypass age restrictions.
- Repeated Age Assurance Attempts: Some platforms have seemingly allowed underage users to repeatedly attempt the same age-assurance method, thereby increasing their chances of eventually passing the checks. This raises questions about the robustness and design of these age verification systems.
- Inaccessible Reporting Pathways: The pathways available for reporting accounts that are in violation of age restrictions have, in general, not been readily accessible or effective, particularly for parents seeking to flag concerns. This lack of accessible recourse can leave parents feeling powerless.
- Insufficient Prevention Measures: A number of platforms appear not to have implemented sufficient measures to proactively prevent under-16s from creating accounts in the first place, indicating a potential shortfall in their commitment to compliance.
In response to these findings, the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has initiated investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube for “potential non-compliance.” To date, none of these companies have faced fines, and a decision regarding any potential enforcement actions is anticipated by the middle of the year.
This report emerges just a week after the Australian government formally registered a new legislative rule. This rule aims to broaden the definition of social media platforms to explicitly include those that feature “addictive or otherwise harmful design features.” These features can encompass:
- Infinite Scroll: This design element presents new content without a discernible end, encouraging continuous engagement and potentially leading to prolonged usage.
- Feedback Features: The display of metrics like “likes” or “upvotes” can foster social comparison and create pressure on users to curate their online personas to gain validation.
- Time-Limited Features: Ephemeral content, such as disappearing “stories,” can generate a sense of urgency, prompting users to constantly check for updates and exacerbating the addictive nature of the platforms.
This legislative update coincides with a significant development in the United States, where Meta and Google, the parent companies of Instagram and YouTube respectively, were found liable by a jury for the addictive features embedded within their social media platforms.
A ‘Constantly Evolving’ Digital Landscape
The removal of over 5 million accounts within a four-month period might initially appear impressive. However, this figure does not directly equate to the number of social media users. Many individuals maintain multiple social media accounts, making it difficult to ascertain precisely how many children under 16 continue to access one or more platforms. Furthermore, the report does not provide data on the number of new accounts created by children since the legislation’s implementation.
The report also refrains from estimating the number of under-16s who are now utilising alternative platforms. Nevertheless, there have been anecdotal reports indicating a substantial surge in downloads of less mainstream platforms, such as RedNote, Yope, and Lemon8, since December.
The eSafety report acknowledges the dynamic nature of the social media landscape, describing it as “constantly evolving.” It concedes the difficulty in maintaining a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all platforms that fall under the age restriction legislation. Despite this challenge, eSafety does maintain a list of the platforms initially included in the ban, as well as those that have voluntarily identified themselves and agreed to comply. This list includes platforms like Bluesky, dating applications such as Tinder, and Lemon8, though other platforms remain accessible to underage users.
Since the ban’s inception, questions have also arisen regarding whether Australia’s restrictions should extend to a broader range of platforms. Reports have highlighted perceived “loopholes” in the legislation, particularly concerning gaming applications and the exclusion of messaging apps like WhatsApp and Messenger. Other platforms that incorporate social networking functionalities also remain outside the direct scope of the ban.
Roblox, a platform that was initially considered for inclusion in the ban but was subsequently exempted, has also garnered attention in relation to child safety concerns. The platform is currently undergoing a government review due to apprehensions surrounding child grooming.
Unanswered Questions and the Path Forward
As eSafety continues its investigations into compliance with the existing legislation, several crucial questions remain unresolved:
-
Defining “Reasonable Steps”: A primary unanswered question pertains to the definition of “reasonable steps” that social media companies are expected to take to comply with age restrictions. The report suggests that this is “ultimately a question for the courts to determine.” It further elaborates that determining what constitutes reasonable steps must be considered “in the context of the platform’s service, technological feasibility, and the regulatory landscape.” However, if a company employs age-assurance technologies with inherent error rates that allow some children to bypass safeguards, will that company still be deemed to have taken reasonable steps to control account access?
-
Scope of Compliance Checks: A second significant question is whether eSafety will expand its compliance checks beyond the five mainstream platforms currently under investigation. As new platforms emerge and children continue to seek novel ways to connect with peers online, the potential avenues for encountering harm continue to proliferate. Is self-assessment by technology companies sufficient to enforce legislation intended to apply to all platforms that meet the definition of an age-restricted platform?
-
Government’s Future Regulatory Approach: Finally, the question remains: will the government continue to introduce new rules to bolster the safety of children online?
Experts have consistently highlighted a key limitation since early 2024: restricting access to accounts alone does not adequately address the actual harms posed by content, algorithms, and other platform design features.
The government has concluded its consultations on its proposed digital duty of care legislation. However, the timeline for its introduction remains uncertain.
The recent report on social media restrictions underscores that a considerable journey lies ahead in achieving full compliance. If the aim is to comprehensively address the harms perpetrated by these platforms, new legislation that directly targets the root causes of these issues is demonstrably necessary.
