Australia's government is preparing to toughen its approach to keeping children off social media, acknowledging that the world-first legislation introduced last December has not achieved its intended effect. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced in Parliament on June 25 that officials are examining ways to reinforce the restrictions, which currently prohibit users under a certain age from creating accounts on major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. The revelation comes after six months of implementation revealed significant gaps in compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
When Australia became the first nation globally to pass such legislation in December, it was hailed as a breakthrough in child online safety. The regulatory framework has since prompted comparable action elsewhere, with Britain, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia all introducing or announcing similar age-based restrictions. Several European countries including France, Spain and Denmark, alongside Thailand and South Korea in the Asia-Pacific region, are currently developing equivalent approaches. This international momentum underscores the mounting concern among governments about the impact of social media on young people's mental health, development and exposure to harmful content.
The emerging evidence of the ban's weakness has proven sobering. Data released by Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in March showed that approximately seven in ten children below the regulated age had continued to maintain active accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok since the law came into force. This substantial non-compliance rate suggests that either younger users are circumventing age-verification mechanisms or platforms are not implementing sufficient enforcement procedures. Albanese framed the challenge as fundamentally different from issues confronting previous generations, emphasizing the complexity of regulating technology that did not previously exist.
Inman Grant's office has signalled an aggressive stance toward non-compliance. The eSafety Commissioner indicated in April that court proceedings were being considered against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube for allegedly failing to implement adequate safeguards. The legislation establishes substantial financial penalties of up to A$49.5 million for platforms that do not take what the law describes as "reasonable steps" to prevent underage account creation. Other services including X, Kick, Reddit, Threads and Twitch are similarly subject to these maximum penalties.
However, legal and regulatory experts question whether existing enforcement tools are sufficient. Lisa Given, an information sciences researcher at Melbourne's RMIT University, has characterized the current regime as fundamentally failing to achieve its objectives. She notes that the regulatory framework is only as effective as the powers and resources allocated to its enforcement body, suggesting that resource constraints may be hampering the eSafety Commissioner's ability to act decisively. Given also points out that many young people themselves perceive the restrictions as ineffective, potentially undermining the moral authority of the approach.
A critical legal uncertainty centres on how courts will interpret the concept of "reasonable steps" when cases proceed through the judiciary. Both the platforms and the regulator face ambiguity about what enforcement standards will ultimately be required. This interpretive gap has created space for platforms to contest allegations of non-compliance while the eSafety Commissioner struggles to establish clear precedents. Given's analysis suggests that either expanding the Commissioner's powers or developing alternative enforcement mechanisms will be necessary to strengthen implementation.
The government's proposed remedy involves two complementary approaches. First, officials are examining whether the existing legislation itself requires amendment to close loopholes and establish clearer enforcement obligations. Second, Albanese's administration is proceeding with separate digital duty of care legislation designed to hold platforms accountable for foreseeable harms arising from algorithmic content distribution and recommendation systems. This broader framework would establish a general responsibility for platforms to address harmful content, rather than relying solely on age-verification mechanisms.
For Malaysian readers, Australia's experience carries significant implications. Southeast Asian countries including Indonesia have already begun exploring comparable regulations, and the Malaysian government may face similar questions about how to protect young people from social media harms while respecting digital freedoms. The Australian case demonstrates that legislation alone proves insufficient without robust enforcement capacity and clear regulatory standards that courts can consistently apply. The technical challenges of age verification—including the use of false identification and device-sharing among family members—are universal problems that transcend national borders.
The emerging pattern across multiple democracies suggests that governments increasingly view social media regulation as a core responsibility, particularly regarding child safety. However, Australia's initial experience indicates that the most challenging phase lies not in passing legislation but in implementing and enforcing it against well-resourced technology companies that operate across borders. The additional digital duty of care approach being considered in Australia represents an attempt to broaden accountability beyond simple age restrictions to encompass algorithmic harms—a framework that may prove more durable than age-verification alone.
