Australia alleges that Meta, TikTok, and YouTube are failing to adhere to the ban on social media access for children.

      Three months after Australia became the first nation globally to prohibit children under 16 from having social media accounts, its online safety regulator has stated that the platforms are not sufficiently enforcing this ban. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant released her initial compliance report on Tuesday, claiming that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube have not taken the "reasonable steps" mandated by law to ensure young Australians do not access their services.

      The data reveals a mix of limited progress and considerable shortcomings. Since the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act came into effect on December 10, around five million Australian accounts belonging to users under 16 have been deactivated. However, the compliance report, which surveyed 898 parents at the end of January, found that approximately 70% of children who previously used social media still maintained accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok after the ban. Children are keeping their accounts, creating new ones, and bypassing age verification systems that seem ineffective at preventing access.

      Inman Grant expressed "significant concerns regarding the compliance" of half of the ten platforms encompassed by the law. The five under scrutiny—Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube—could face legal action that eSafety plans to address by mid-year. Courts can impose fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic non-compliance. The other five platforms, Reddit, X, Kick, Threads, and Twitch, are not currently under investigation.

      The eSafety report pointed out what it termed "poor practices" among the platforms. Some allow unlimited attempts for a user to pass age verification, while others prompt users to try again even after they have identified themselves as underage. These practices do not indicate a system intended to keep children out; rather, they suggest systems aimed at retaining users.

      Communications Minister Anika Wells was more direct in her critique. She stated that the five platforms under fire were intentionally not adhering to Australian law, opting to do "the absolute bare minimum because they want these laws to fail." This perspective is of strategic importance; Australia's ban is the first of its kind, and over a dozen other countries have indicated interest in implementing similar measures since December. France’s National Assembly passed a bill in January to ban social media usage for under-15s, Denmark announced limitations for under-15s, Malaysia set a 2026 rollout for an under-16 ban, and Indonesia plans to restrict access to platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook for children throughout its digital landscape. Wells argued that if Australia's law is perceived to fail, it could hinder global momentum.

      Responses from the platforms varied. Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram, informed the Associated Press that it is dedicated to compliance but recognized that "accurately determining age online is a challenge for the entire industry." Snap, which owns Snapchat, mentioned that it had locked 450,000 accounts and remains "fully committed to implementing reasonable measures." TikTok chose not to comment, and Alphabet, which owns YouTube and Google, did not respond to a request for comments.

      The challenge of compliance is genuine rather than just a convenient excuse. The law does not specify particular age-verification technologies, nor does it require government ID checks, biometric scans, or any specific mechanisms. Instead, it tasks the platforms to take "reasonable steps," a purposely flexible standard that leaves the interpretation of adequacy to the courts. Some platforms utilize behavioral inferencing, analyzing activity patterns to estimate a user's age, while others employ AI tools designed to estimate age based on photographs. None of these methods is foolproof, and the eSafety Commissioner has acknowledged that accurate age assurance may take days or weeks.

      Lisa Given, an information sciences expert at RMIT University in Melbourne, framed the legal issue succinctly. If a platform has implemented age validation and taken various steps to exclude young users, does that qualify as reasonable, even if the technology is imperfect? “Should they be held accountable for technology that is not infallible and unlikely to become infallible soon?” she asked. This question will now move to the courts.

      It may arrive alongside a constitutional challenge. Reddit has filed a case in the Australian High Court claiming that the ban infringes on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. A second challenge has been brought forth by the Digital Freedom Project, a rights group based in Sydney. The High Court has instructed both cases to proceed together, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for May 21 to determine a date for oral arguments. The constitutional question—whether prohibiting minors from platforms that facilitate political speech and civic discourse aligns with democratic freedoms—will test the boundaries of governmental regulation of digital access.

      The law was passed by Parliament on November 29, 2024, with bipartisan support, reflecting a political consensus that the mental health risks associated with social media for young people outweigh the benefits of access. Notably, it imposes no penalties on