AUSTRALIA TO DOUBLE FINES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS BREACHING UNDER-16 BAN

29 Giugno 2026 - 06:31

The Albanese government will increase maximum penalties to $99 million and give the eSafety Commissioner stronger investigative powers, accusing major technology companies of doing the “bare minimum” to keep children off social media

The Australian government is escalating its confrontation with major technology companies as it moves to strengthen the national social media ban for children under the age of 16.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells have announced new legislation that would double the maximum penalties for platforms that repeatedly fail to comply with the law.

Fines could rise from the current maximum of $49.5 million to $99 million.

The government will also expand the powers of the eSafety Commissioner, allowing the regulator to demand more detailed information about the systems used by social media companies to verify users’ ages and prevent children from opening or maintaining accounts.

“We are calling time on the social media companies today,” Albanese said.

The Prime Minister argued that the platforms are not doing enough to stop children from accessing their services and must take greater responsibility for complying with Australian law.

“CLASSIC BIG TECH TACTICS”

Anika Wells delivered a particularly direct warning to the technology industry.

She accused the platforms of using “classic big tech tactics” by doing the minimum required and behaving as though they were above domestic law.

The minister referred to the case of a 13-year-old girl who was allegedly able to open a new social media account without even being asked her age.

“It is simply not good enough,” Wells said.

“Every effort you make to frustrate these laws will be met with our efforts to make these laws work.”

The government’s message is clear: formal compliance will not be enough if children can continue to bypass age checks easily.

Platforms will be expected to demonstrate that their systems are effective, consistently applied and difficult to circumvent.

MAXIMUM PENALTIES TO REACH $99 MILLION

The most significant change is the proposed doubling of the maximum fine for systemic breaches of the minimum-age law.

The penalty would increase from $49.5 million to $99 million, bringing it closer to the level of sanctions available under Australian competition and consumer law.

The government believes the existing fines may not be a sufficient deterrent for multinational companies generating tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue.

By increasing the penalty, Canberra hopes to make non-compliance more expensive than investing in serious age-assurance systems.

Penalties would also be strengthened for companies that fail to provide complete or accurate information to the eSafety Commissioner.

STRONGER POWERS FOR THE REGULATOR

The proposed legislation would give the eSafety Commissioner broader authority to demand documents, technical data and evidence from social media companies.

Platforms could be required to explain how their age-verification systems operate, how many accounts have been removed and what steps they have taken to prevent minors from creating new profiles.

The regulator would also be able to seek information from third parties.

These could include age-assurance providers, facial-age estimation companies, app stores and other businesses involved in digital identity or verification services.

This would allow eSafety to independently test claims made by the platforms instead of relying only on information supplied by the companies being investigated.

The government says greater transparency is essential if the law is to be enforced effectively.

FIVE MAJOR PLATFORMS UNDER SCRUTINY

The eSafety Commissioner is already examining the compliance of five major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

The investigations will assess whether the companies have taken all “reasonable steps” required by law to stop children under 16 from maintaining or creating accounts.

The presence of some minors on a platform does not automatically prove a breach.

The regulator must determine whether the systems used are inadequate, inconsistently applied or too easy to evade.

Concerns reportedly include age checks that can be repeated several times until the user receives a favourable result and the lack of simple mechanisms for reporting accounts believed to belong to children.

In some cases, young users may also have been allowed to change their declared date of birth or attempt verification again.

MILLIONS OF ACCOUNTS REMOVED OR RESTRICTED

The government says more than five million accounts linked to underage users have already been removed, deactivated or restricted since the law took effect.

Earlier figures released by eSafety indicated that approximately 4.7 million accounts had been affected during the initial period of enforcement.

The total has since increased.

The number suggests that the platforms have taken some action, but the government believes the result remains insufficient.

Recent research found that four in five children were still using social media apps despite the ban.

That finding has increased pressure on the government to prove that the world-leading legislation can work in practice, not only on paper.

THE CHALLENGE OF AGE VERIFICATION

One of the most difficult questions is how platforms can verify a user’s age without collecting excessive personal information.

Different companies use different systems.

Some simply ask users to enter their date of birth, a method that can be easily bypassed.

Others may request identity documents, credit card details or information linked to an existing account.

Facial age-estimation technology can also be used to assess whether someone appears old enough to access the service.

However, such systems are not always precise, particularly when distinguishing between users aged 14, 15, 16 or 17.

A young teenager may be incorrectly assessed as being above the legal threshold.

The government therefore wants platforms to use more robust systems, potentially combining several methods instead of relying on a single, easily manipulated check.

THE BAN APPLIES TO ACCOUNTS

The Australian law does not completely prevent children from accessing the internet or viewing every piece of content available online.

It is primarily directed at personal accounts on platforms covered by the legislation.

Children may still be able to view some public content without logging in, depending on the service.

The policy aims to reduce exposure to features regarded as particularly harmful or addictive, including personalised recommendation algorithms, direct messaging, continuous notifications and engagement systems designed to keep users online for longer periods.

Some services focused mainly on messaging, education, gaming or professional collaboration may fall outside the ban.

However, companies must assess whether the characteristics of their platforms bring them within the scope of the law.

A MODEL BEING WATCHED AROUND THE WORLD

Albanese said at least 20 countries were now following or studying Australia’s approach.

Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide social media minimum age of 16 backed by substantial financial penalties for technology companies.

The government describes the policy as a generational reform that could reshape the relationship between children, families and digital platforms.

Albanese also acknowledged the role of former Liberal leader Peter Dutton, who supported the original legislation on a bipartisan basis.

The Prime Minister said Australian parents had helped drive the reform and that the government would continue to stand with them.

THE INDUSTRY’S CONCERNS

Technology companies have previously raised concerns about the technical feasibility of the ban, its effectiveness and its potential impact on privacy.

Some argue that children may simply move to smaller or less regulated platforms or use tools that conceal their age and location.

Others warn that age verification could require the collection of more personal documents or biometric information.

The government maintains that these risks can be managed and that the companies have the technology, resources and expertise needed to comply.

Canberra’s position is that parents and children should not bear the main burden of enforcement.

Responsibility must rest with the platforms that design, operate and profit from the services.

SAFETY VERSUS ACCESS

The under-16 ban continues to divide experts, families and digital-rights organisations.

Supporters argue that social media can contribute to anxiety, depression, body-image problems, cyberbullying and addictive behaviour.

Delaying access to personal accounts could give children more time to develop the maturity needed to manage online risks.

Critics warn that the policy may isolate some teenagers, restrict access to support communities and push young people towards less visible or less regulated online spaces.

Others argue that the core problem is not simply the age of users but the design of algorithms and engagement systems.

The government says the ban is not intended to be the only solution but one part of a broader online-safety strategy.

THE REAL TEST IS ENFORCEMENT

The next stage will determine whether Australia’s legislation becomes an effective international model or an ambitious law that platforms can still work around.

Removing millions of accounts is a significant result, but it will not be enough if children can immediately open new ones.

The companies will have to demonstrate that their systems can detect underage users while protecting privacy and limiting unnecessary collection of personal data.

The eSafety Commissioner will also need sufficient evidence to launch enforcement proceedings and defend any penalties before the courts.

The proposed $99 million maximum fine signals that the government is prepared to move from cooperation to tougher enforcement.

“WE ARE NOT STOPPING”

Wells summarised the government’s position with a direct message to the social media giants.

Canberra will not accept superficial measures from some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful companies.

Weak controls, delays and systems that can be easily bypassed will face closer investigation.

“We are not stopping,” the minister said.

Australia’s battle over children’s access to social media is now entering a more aggressive phase.

After introducing the age limit, the government wants to prove that even global technology companies can be required to obey Australian law.

For the platforms, the choice is increasingly clear: improve their systems or face investigations, tougher regulatory powers and fines of up to $99 million.