In a major escalation of its efforts to clamp down on social media companies, the Australian government has doubled the fines for those that continue to let children under 16 use social media platforms, admitting that the nation’s pioneering under-16 social media ban has had little impact on teen social media usage six months on. It is part of a wider bill update which will also grant the country’s internet regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, greater powers to collect information, including to force technology firms to turn over tangible proof of compliance. The decision is one of the most vigorous attempts by regulators anywhere to limit the reach of large platforms, as Australia steps on the international stage as a leader in efforts to safeguard young people from the risks that social media can pose.
The updated penalties increase the maximum fine for the regulators from A$49.5 million to A$99 million or about $68 million for systematic failures to ensure compliance with the ban. The significant rise indicates Australia’s frustration at perceived willful non-compliance by the big tech firms such as Meta‘s Instagram and Facebook, Google’s YouTube, Snap’s Snapchat and TikTok. The government has made it clear the eSafety Commissioner is actively looking into these five platforms for breaches, indicating that the government is taking steps beyond symbolic gestures to take action.
Premier Anthony Albanese said he was “heartened by the change in the conversation and the global momentum we’ve seen since we introduced the social media minimum age, but it’s clear big tech are not doing enough to comply with the law – there are still too many children on social media. The same sentiment has been echoed across the globe, as there is increasing international agreement that technology firms do not seem to be doing enough to police their platforms, even with resources and technical capacity at their disposal.
At first sight, the government’s announcement was significant, since it has noted that more than 5 million accounts of those under 16 have been deactivated or restricted since the ban was put in place. But recent reports indicate that the figures are not necessarily definitive, as many have shown that age-assurance systems introduced by tech firms are very easy to bypass by children. Platforms have tried a variety of methods to stop young people from using social media services, including asking young people to submit photos to confirm their age, but these approaches have largely failed to curb access by determined young people.
One of the most damning studies released this week involved 408 adolescents, and revealed that 85% of Australian teens aged between 12 and 15 were still using social media three months after the ban was implemented. The statistic counters the government’s claim to success and indicates that the current scheme of regulation has failed to have any major effect on youth social media use. The study also showed that two-thirds of underage users kept logging on after simply saying they were older than 16, and the selfie they did submit as proof of age was accepted by platforms as the correct age. This illustrates the lack of depth that current age verification processes have.
When it comes to the industry’s reaction to the bill, Minister for Communications Anika Wells had no holds barred to say that based on the regular updates she receives from the eSafety Commissioner, “it’s plain as day to me that social media platforms are using tricks from the big tech playbook and doing the minimum to comply”. This description reflects the regulatory assumption that the industry is not really trying to comply, but is more likely engaged in a “calculated” minimum effort approach, and calls into question the effectiveness of existing penalties to incentivize the industry to change.
The proposed changes to the legislation go beyond just raising fines, as the government wants to tackle real gaps in its enforcement powers, including giving the eSafety Commissioner access to information from social media platforms and, importantly, from third parties like age-assurance vendors and app stores. This new power will allow regulators to challenge the veracity of the age verification methods offered by platforms and to determine if they are actually using the technology that is available or simply manipulating it to ensure that they can attract more users. In April, industry representatives admitted that the enforcement problems were not due to any inability to deploy the existing age check tools, but that the companies were not doing so.
The six-month ban has been the subject of much international interest, with many countries keeping a close eye on its rollout and considering such measures in their own territories. It is clear that the global regulatory environment is changing rapidly as Britain recently announced plans to introduce even more stringent regulations, not just for social media platforms, but also for gaming and live-streaming services. The global trend mirrors the global worry about exposure to social media having a negative effect on the mental health and physical well-being of younger users, while the efficacy of age-based limits is a highly debated issue within the policy community, public health and across technology research circles.
The success of Australia’s strategy raises basic questions about the utility of age restrictions in the digital era. Although the government’s goal to keep young people off the social media platforms it believes are harming them is popular, the British Medical Journal study highlighted the difficulties of enforcing age limits just by technological means without also implementing cultural and societal changes. The fact that minors are easily able to evade the age verification process suggests that social media platforms may be structurally disincentivized from adopting robust age-verification systems, as losing a major segment of their users — youth — could mean a loss of profits in advertising revenue and engagement.
