Meta deleted 756,000 accounts in Australia. The company's actual request is for Apple to handle the verification.

      Representatives from Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap provided testimony to an Australian parliamentary inquiry on Friday, as reported by Reuters. Regulatory authorities and government officials were also present.

      Meta was the first to present its evidence and did so independently. On Wednesday, it released its enforcement statistics for the period from December 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, through its newsroom. No other platform has disclosed compliance data for that timeframe.

      The request is found in the final paragraph. As one reads through the post, the argument evolves. Meta expresses its "primary concern" that platforms lack a consistent approach regarding the removal of teenage users. This leads to their proposal: “There should be a single reliable age signal delivered at the operating system or app store level,” according to the company. They suggest that age could be verified once, at the time a young person sets up their device or downloads an application, instead of repetitively across multiple apps.

      This position represents a policy suggestion, rather than a compliance update, shifting the responsibility for age verification from social platforms to Apple and Google.

      Understanding the significance of this shift involves examining the implications. The entity responsible for conducting the verification bears the costs and risks associated with inaccuracies and regulatory scrutiny. Currently, under Australian law, this responsibility falls on Meta, but with Meta’s proposal, it would shift to the device manufacturers and app stores.

      Meta is already somewhat reliant on these layers, as evidenced by its recent update raising its Apple App Store age rating to 16 and above in Australia. The strongest aspect of Meta's argument pertains to privacy: a single verification process at setup would minimize the distribution of personal data compared to requiring multiple verifications across various apps.

      However, the timing of the proposal is less robust. Meta opposed this legislation, and the suggestion is made public while regulators are considering legal action.

      The pressure on Meta stems from Australia's online safety regulator, which is contemplating an enforcement lawsuit against platforms it deems insufficient in their actions. The government has also passed legislation that doubles the maximum fines for non-compliance to A$99 million (about $69.75 million) and grants regulators enhanced document discovery abilities. Australia has accused platforms of setting up the ban to fail, making Meta’s release of a substantial enforcement number just before the hearing a logical response to such claims, particularly as it is the only figure made public in this context.

      Breaking down the 756,000 figure, Meta reported that it removed 462,000 Instagram accounts and 294,000 Facebook accounts. Over 500,000 of those removals occurred prior to the law taking effect on December 10, with Meta reporting 331,000 Instagram and 173,000 Facebook removals by January. Thus, approximately a quarter of a million accounts were removed in the six months following the deadline, and Meta indicates that enforcement efforts will continue.

      The methodology for determining if an account belongs to an individual under 16 is noteworthy, as it relies on content analysis. Meta claims to utilize AI to analyze profiles, including posts, comments, bios, and captions, searching for contextual indicators of under-16 users such as birthday celebrations and references to school grades. Reports submitted by parents and the public are also reviewed by AI, which Meta states is more accurate and quicker than human evaluations. Additionally, they have tightened systems to prevent a removed user from quickly re-registering.

      This aspect should be considered against the privacy argument presented separately; Meta advocates for a singular age signal at the device level while simultaneously analyzing posts to deduce users' ages. Both claims can coexist: the latter serves as a compelling rationale for the former, though Meta does not explicitly connect the two.

      One significant question that remained unanswered is regarding the number of under-16s believed to still have Instagram or Facebook accounts in Australia. Meta chose not to disclose this figure, while a regulator's survey indicated that 81.5% of individuals under 16 were using social media platforms in March, a decrease from 85.9% prior to the law. This survey highlighted that approximately 38% of 10 to 15-year-olds with Instagram accounts reported that the platform had not yet requested age verification, with Facebook showing a similar statistic of roughly 28%.

      Meta responded by noting that the survey data was captured at the end of March, and they have since removed more accounts and implemented additional measures. While this is a valid point, it cannot be independently validated until further surveys are conducted.

      The context in Europe underscores the importance of these debates. Over two dozen countries have implemented or are considering similar bans, with educators in Hong Kong advocating for a social media ban for under-16s, and European regulators approaching similar concerns from different angles. Brussels has found issues related to addictive design on Meta’s platforms, and the company faces lawsuits from 29 states concerning youth social media practices.

      The Australian social media ban serves as a testing ground, influencing future regulations and approaches. Should the age