Australia is set to enforce the world’s most stringent social media regulations after its Senate approved a bill prohibiting children under 16 from accessing social platforms.
The ban, which will take effect in at least 12 months, threatens tech companies with fines up to A$50 million ($32.5 million; £25.7 million) if they fail to comply.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasized the necessity of the legislation, highlighting concerns over social media’s potential harms to youth, a sentiment echoed by many parent advocacy groups.
“This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood,” Albanese stated. “We want parents to have peace of mind.”
Unlike previous attempts globally to regulate youth social media use, this legislation sets the highest age threshold without exemptions for existing users or parental consent.
The bill passed the Senate by a 34-19 vote and now awaits final approval in the House of Representatives, where the government holds a majority, making passage almost certain.
The law does not specify which platforms will be banned. Instead, the communications minister, advised by the eSafety Commissioner, will determine the platforms subject to restrictions.
Notably, gaming and messaging platforms, as well as sites accessible without an account—such as YouTube—are likely to be excluded.
To enforce the ban, the government plans to test age-verification technologies, placing the responsibility on social media platforms to adopt these measures.
Critics, however, question whether the technology—potentially involving biometrics or identity verification—will be effective or safeguard privacy.
Digital researchers have also pointed out the ease with which children could bypass the restrictions using tools like VPNs, which mask their location.
Despite these concerns, children who circumvent the ban will not face penalties.
Polling indicated widespread support among Australian parents and caregivers. Amy Friedlander, a vocal advocate for the ban, explained, “For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out. We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”
Many experts warn that the law may be too blunt an approach, potentially driving children toward less regulated online spaces.
Tech companies, including Google, Snap, and Meta, have criticized the lack of clarity and questioned its effectiveness. TikTok expressed concern that the bill’s broad definition of social media could encompass nearly all online services.
X raised doubts about the bill’s legality, noting potential conflicts with international laws and human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory.
Youth advocates, like the eSafety Youth Council, lamented their exclusion from the conversation, stressing the importance of their input in crafting solutions.
“We understand we are vulnerable to the risks and negative impacts of social media… but we need to be involved in developing solutions,” the council stated.
While acknowledging the complexities, Albanese defended the bill, saying, “We all know technology moves fast and some people will try to find ways around these new laws but that is not a reason to ignore the responsibility that we have.”
Australia’s bold move is drawing attention worldwide. Norway has committed to adopting similar measures, and the UK’s technology secretary recently hinted at considering a comparable ban, though not immediately.
France implemented a law requiring parental consent for social media use by children under 15, but many circumvented it using VPNs. Meanwhile, a similar law in Utah was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. federal judge.
As global leaders closely monitor Australia’s efforts, the debate over balancing online safety and personal freedoms intensifies.
