At the end of 2024, the Australian federal government passed a law banning individuals under the age of 16 from using social networks.
The decision, which comes into force on 10 December 2025, represents the strictest regulatory framework ever introduced in the area of digital child protection.
Unlike previous global initiatives, which have mostly relied on industry self-regulation and parental control mechanisms, the Australian law introduces a total ban and the possibility of fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars for platforms that breach the regulation.
The law covers platforms whose basic functions include social interaction, content sharing, and communication between users. These include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube.
The original intention was to exempt YouTube for its "educational value", but this exemption was withdrawn following the eSafety Commission's report published in August, which showed that children are most frequently exposed to violent, misogynistic, and harmful content on YouTube.
According to data from an independent observer, more than 38% of children aged 10 to 15 are exposed to content on this platform that would be categorised as harmful under Australian law.
Legal prohibition over voluntary codes
At the heart of the regulatory infrastructure is the eSafety Commissioner, an independent authority with wide-ranging powers to monitor, develop policies and enforce criminal offences in the digital space.
The Commission criticised the tech giants for their systematic lack of transparency, failure to use hash technologies to identify sexual abuse material and refusal to participate in joint protocols to protect minors.
In the latest report, the Commission notes that YouTube, Apple and Discord have not provided the requested data on abuse reports and that they do not use any of the recommended technologies to prevent the sexual exploitation of children.
Unlike Meta, which has set up a process to automatically recognise content and detect grooming, the platforms mentioned "systematically ignore the risks that their systems create."
Companies that do not implement effective verification mechanisms—and thus allow access to minors—will bear financial responsibility
The Australian government has opted for a model of legal prohibition rather than providing guidance to industry through voluntary codes of practice. The law includes a requirement to verify the age of all users, which raises serious questions about privacy and technical feasibility.
Specific methods have not been defined, but verification by an official document, identification by a mobile operator, AI age estimation based on a photo or analysing user account history are listed as acceptable.
The government has made it clear that companies that do not implement effective verification mechanisms—and thus allow access to minors—will bear financial responsibility, regardless of the number of users, their market presence, or their formal declarations of intent to cooperate.
Australia’s timely approach
The industry's reaction was predictable. Alphabet, the owner of YouTube, has hinted at a possible lawsuit against the government, stating that YouTube is not a social network in the traditional sense but a platform for streaming content.
Given the broad definition of the term "social platform" in Australian legislation, which includes any service that allows interaction between users, such an argument has little chance of success.
The companies also cited concerns about data protection and the potential infringement of user rights, albeit without any concrete proposals for alternative forms of control.
The legislator's decision provoked mixed reactions. While parents' organisations and some paediatricians welcome the move as a necessary measure against the irresponsibility of the industry, parts of the academic community and digital rights organisations point to possible negative consequences—the social isolation of children, an increase in the use of VPN services and false identities, and the strengthening of the digital black market.
There are also warnings that the ban could prove ineffective without concurrent education and digital literacy building, and that responsibility for monitoring will in practice fall back on parents, regardless of formal review mechanisms.
The law is repressive but with a rationale based not on moral panic but on the analyses of government regulators
However, Australia does not see this law as an isolated experiment. The government has announced that it will present it at the September session of the United Nations General Assembly as the basis for a broader global initiative.
The aim is to put the issue of digital child protection on the agenda of multilateral forums, with a clear call for a regulatory minimum and binding standards that should be accepted by all platforms with a global reach.
Given the failure to date of attempts to regulate digital safety globally through OECD guidelines or G20 declarations, it remains to be seen whether the Australian model will find institutional resonance or remain an isolated case of national regulatory interventionism.
As the debate comes at a time of increasing international pressure on technology platforms for the algorithmic promotion of radical content, sexual exploitation, psychological abuse and human trafficking, Australia's approach is timely.
The law is restrictive but transparent; it is sanctioned but with clear criteria; it is repressive but with a rationale based not on moral panic but on the analyses of government regulators.
The state, not an algorithm
Compared to the European Union and UK models, the Australian law goes much further. The EU regulation (Digital Services Act) provides for obligations for platforms to remove harmful content and introduce algorithmic transparency but does not contain any age-related bans.
The biggest challenge will be monitoring the implementation of the law, the possibility of manipulation of verification systems and the willingness of regulators to actually impose penalties on global giants - Australian Parliament
The UK's Online Safety Act of 2023 aims to hold platforms accountable for moderating content, but without a legal access ban mechanism. This makes Australia the first Western system to explicitly criminalise business models based on attracting underage users.
The question of implementation remains. The biggest challenge will be monitoring the implementation of the law, the possibility of manipulation of verification systems and the willingness of regulators to actually impose penalties on global giants.
If the Australian government does not demonstrate the ability to sanction breaches of its own law, the entire model will be undermined.
However, if consistency and legal certainty are demonstrated, the law could become the basis for a new phase in the relationship between states and technology platforms — one in which children are no longer seen as users but as subjects of rights.
And to reiterate, the Australian decision is not the result of a moral reflex but of systemic analysis. It is not the result of panic in the media but of the institutional realisation of the platforms' long-standing refusal to acknowledge responsibility for creating risks.
And that is precisely why this law, regardless of the success or failure of its implementation, changes the fundamental paradigm: the state, not an algorithm, will once again become the authority in the digital sphere.
