Tech giants are adopting tricks and doing the bare minimum to get by
Australia has chosen to meet the gap between legislative intent and digital reality with force rather than retreat, doubling the financial penalties facing social media companies that fail to keep children under sixteen off their platforms. The move comes not in triumph but in acknowledgment — five million accounts removed, yet four in five young users still finding their way through. In the long human story of societies trying to protect the young from new and powerful forces, this moment sits at a familiar crossroads: between the reach of law and the ingenuity of those it cannot quite hold.
- Australia's government is doubling down on its world-first youth social media ban, raising maximum penalties from $49.5 million to $99 million after concluding tech companies are doing the bare minimum to comply.
- Independent research from the University of Newcastle found that more than 80% of under-16s were still using social media three months after the ban took effect — through fake accounts, VPNs, and age checks that rarely demanded real proof.
- The eSafety Commissioner is being handed sharper investigative teeth, with new powers to compel evidence not just from platforms but from third-party age-verification providers and app stores.
- Australia's law has sparked a wave of similar legislation across France, the UK, Slovenia, Poland, and beyond — but its own effectiveness remains deeply in question, with researchers describing the results as 'limited implementation and substantial circumvention.'
- The ban may be reshaping access for very young children, but for teenagers already embedded in social platforms, the law appears more symbolic than structural — a signal of intent that the digital landscape has so far absorbed without breaking stride.
Australia's government is tightening its grip on social media companies, doubling the maximum penalty for failing to keep under-16s off their platforms from $49.5 million to $99 million. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has framed the escalation as a necessary response to tech giants doing too little, too reluctantly.
Since the ban took effect in December, more than five million accounts belonging to minors have been removed or restricted. But the government's own language — that "there are still too many children on social media" — betrays the law's limits. A University of Newcastle study of over 400 teenagers found that more than 80% of under-16s were still using social media three months in, with researchers describing the outcome as marked by "limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention."
The mechanics of getting around the ban are neither sophisticated nor rare. Around 15–19% of surveyed teens admitted to using fake accounts, and most age-verification checks amounted to little more than a self-reported birthday or a casual selfie. Only a small fraction of the youngest users were ever asked for official identification.
In response, the eSafety Commissioner is being granted stronger investigative powers — able to demand compliance evidence not just from platforms, but from age-assurance providers and app stores. Communications Minister Anika Wells accused the platforms of performing compliance while children continued to slip through.
Australia's ban, the first of its kind when introduced in late 2024, has since inspired similar legislation in France, the UK, and several other nations. Yet the Australian experience raises an uncomfortable question that all of them will eventually face: when platforms have little incentive to enforce restrictions and teenagers have both the motivation and the means to circumvent them, can a law do more than signal intent? The government's answer, for now, is to raise the stakes and sharpen its tools — and to wait for reality to follow.
Australia's government is tightening the screws on social media companies, doubling the financial penalties for failing to keep children under 16 off their platforms. The maximum fine for systematic breaches will jump from $49.5 million to $99 million, a move Prime Minister Anthony Albanese framed as necessary because, despite his optimism about the law's global influence, tech giants remain insufficiently committed to enforcement.
Since the ban took effect on December 10, more than five million accounts held by under-16s have been removed, deactivated, or restricted. On the surface, this looks like progress. But the government's own acknowledgment that "there are still too many children on social media" hints at a deeper problem: the law is not working as intended. Independent research published this month in the BMJ tells a starker story. A University of Newcastle study of over 400 teenagers found that more than 80 percent of under-16s were still using social media three months after the legislation came into force. The researchers concluded the ban had produced "limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention."
The mechanics of circumvention are straightforward and widespread. Among the teenagers surveyed, about 15 percent of 12- to 13-year-olds and 19 percent of 14- to 15-year-olds admitted to using fake accounts. Another 3 percent used a VPN. Age-verification checks, when they occurred at all, were often perfunctory: two-thirds of teens reported being asked to verify their age, but only 5 percent of the youngest group and 11 percent of the oldest had to provide a photo of official identification. Most checks amounted to little more than asking a child how old they were or requesting a selfie.
The government's response is to give the eSafety Commissioner stronger investigative powers. The regulator will now be able to compel social media companies to produce evidence of their compliance efforts, demanding information and documents not just from the platforms themselves but from third parties like age-assurance providers and app stores. Communications Minister Anika Wells characterized the platforms as adopting "tricks straight out of the big tech playbook," doing the bare minimum to appear compliant while children continue to slip through.
Australia's ban, introduced in November 2024, was the first of its kind globally. The law has since inspired international momentum. France's national assembly passed legislation banning under-15s from social media, with provisions for parental override. The UK government announced plans for an "Australia-plus" ban starting in 2027 with additional restrictions. Slovenia, Poland, Spain, Denmark, and Malaysia are all considering similar measures. Yet the Australian experience raises uncomfortable questions about whether age restrictions, however well-intentioned, can actually work when the platforms themselves have little incentive to enforce them and teenagers have both the motivation and the technical know-how to circumvent them.
The research suggests the ban may prove more effective at preventing very young children—those under eight—from accessing social media in the first place. For adolescents who already use these platforms, who have friends on them, and who understand how to work around restrictions, the law appears to be more symbolic than substantive. The government's decision to double penalties and strengthen enforcement powers signals it will not accept this outcome without a fight. Whether tougher penalties and better investigative tools can close the gap between law and reality remains to be seen.
Citas Notables
Big tech are not doing enough to comply with the law – there are still too many children on social media.— Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
Social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by.— Communications Minister Anika Wells
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why double the penalties now, six months in, if the law is already on the books?
Because the government is watching the same research everyone else is—80 percent of under-16s still on these platforms—and realizing that the threat of a $49.5 million fine isn't moving the needle. They're signaling that compliance isn't optional.
But the research also shows kids are just using fake accounts and VPNs. How does a bigger fine change that?
It doesn't, directly. But it puts pressure on the platforms to actually invest in better age verification, not just the bare minimum. Right now they're asking kids "How old are you?" and calling it compliance. A doubled fine makes that strategy more expensive.
Is this about the platforms not trying, or about the technology not existing to actually verify age?
Both. The platforms have the resources to do better—they're some of the richest companies in the world. But they also know that aggressive age verification would shrink their user base and advertising reach. The government is essentially saying: pick one. Either you verify properly, or you pay.
The UK is watching this and planning an "Australia-plus" ban. What does that tell you?
That other governments see Australia as having found a model worth copying, even if the model isn't working perfectly yet. It's political momentum. But it also means Australia can't back down now—they're the reference point for the world.
What happens to the teenagers who are already on these platforms and want to stay?
That's the hard part nobody's really answered. The law assumes you can legislate behavior, but you're fighting against social connection, peer pressure, and the platforms' entire business model. The research suggests this might work better for preventing eight-year-olds from ever starting. For teenagers already embedded? It's much harder.