X asserts that Australia’s enforcement on under-16s violates international law.

      X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, has informed Australia that its initiative to strengthen enforcement of a pioneering ban on under-16s using social media would violate international law. The company’s objection focuses on legislation that would permit the nation’s online safety regulator to request documents from individuals located far outside Australia. This complaint, as reported by Reuters, comes as Canberra is poised to enforce a law that is already established.

      The ban was implemented last December, and ministers now aim to increase the maximum fine and grant the eSafety Commissioner enhanced authority to gather evidence. The law places the responsibility for keeping the youngest users off the platforms on the companies rather than on parents or children. It applies to major social media networks, including X, and threatens penalties for any firm that does not take "reasonable steps" to verify a user's age.

      X’s argument is concise yet significant. In its comments on the draft legislation, the company stated that the alterations would “force anyone outside Australia to submit information and documents simply due to their association with a company,” which it deems in direct conflict with international law. The company elaborated on the principle involved, cautioning against a “severe impact on international comity,” the practice where courts in one nation respect the decisions of another, while Musk characterized the ban as a “backdoor method to regulate internet access for all Australians.”

      The stakes are high, with the proposed revisions potentially increasing the maximum fine to A$99 million, about $69 million, for platforms that do not succeed in preventing under-16s from using their services. The government argues that the ban is a necessary response to the adverse effects of social media on children's health, asserting that only the platforms, with access to their data and engineers, can effectively enforce an age restriction on such a scale.

      These platforms are already under close scrutiny. The eSafety Commissioner has indicated it is preparing to initiate enforcement action against five services, while Australia has reported that Meta, TikTok, and YouTube are not adhering to the regulations. However, enforcement continues to face challenges. Surveys conducted during the rollout suggest that a significant number of Australians under 16 still have accounts, and initial trials revealed that the age verification checks intended to catch these users faltered at the outset.

      X is not an impartial bystander in this situation, having previously contested eSafety orders to remove violent content. It now finds itself both covered by the ban and serving as its most vocal opponent. Despite its objections, X has stated its intention to comply with the ban itself. Its contention lies with the enforcement legislation, specifically the authority this law would grant to a regulator over individuals and documents outside Australia's borders.

      The dispute has also reached the United States, where a congressional committee has requested that eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant testify, accusing her of endangering Americans’ free speech—an assertion that aligns with X’s perspective.

      The broader audience for this issue is governmental; the UK is considering its own under-16 restrictions, and other nations are observing Australia’s efforts to determine whether a national age limitation can be effectively enforced or if it will succumb to the very platforms it aims to regulate.

      What began as a concern for children has evolved into a debate about jurisdiction. X asserts that Australia’s authority does not extend beyond its borders and that a regulator in Canberra should not be able to issue demands to an office located in California. Conversely, Canberra holds the opposite view, with the bill representing its stance. The upcoming months will reveal whose interpretation of international law prevails and whether the world’s first ban on under-16s can be effectively enforced.