There's no point in doubling the penalty if the regulator doesn't enforce them
In the long contest between democratic governments and the architectures of digital attention, Australia has raised the stakes — doubling fines to $99 million for social media platforms that allow children under sixteen onto their services. Yet the announcement, made in late June 2026, arrives against a sobering backdrop: research suggests four in five young Australians under the ban's age threshold remain active online, raising the question of whether a larger number on a largely unenforced rule changes anything at all. Experts and legislators are pressing a deeper argument — that protecting young minds requires not just age gates and penalties, but a reckoning with the algorithms engineered to hold their attention.
- Despite a ban in effect since December 2026 and over five million accounts removed, roughly 80% of under-16s remain active on social media, exposing the gap between legislation and lived reality.
- Academics warn that doubling fines to $99 million is an empty gesture if the eSafety Commissioner lacks the resources, technical capacity, and political backing to actually pursue platforms.
- The Greens and child safety researchers are pushing a harder demand: regulate the algorithms themselves, not just the age of the user, because engagement-maximising design is the root source of harm.
- A promised digital duty of care framework — which would force platforms to proactively demonstrate they are preventing harm — remains stuck in consultation, leaving the most substantive reform unwritten.
- The opposition calls the penalty increase an embarrassing admission of failure, while the platforms — TikTok, Snapchat, Meta, Google — have offered no public response, and the question of genuine enforcement remains unanswered.
Australia's federal government announced it would double maximum fines for social media platforms breaching the country's under-16 ban, lifting penalties to $99 million and expanding the powers of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to investigate non-compliance. The move followed research showing that approximately 80 percent of young Australians under sixteen remain active on social media despite the ban, which came into force on December 10th — a figure that cast a long shadow over the announcement.
Experts were swift to question the value of larger numbers on paper. Catherine Page Jeffery of the University of Sydney argued the government needed to shift into genuine enforcement mode, warning that penalties without the will or capacity to deploy them are functionally meaningless. The more fundamental concern, she and others argued, is that Australia is treating symptoms rather than causes. What is needed, they say, is digital duty of care legislation — a framework that would compel platforms to proactively make their systems safe, including transparency around the algorithms that drive engagement. The government has promised such legislation but remains in consultation about its design.
The Greens echoed this critique. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young argued that regulating algorithms, not merely user age, must be the centrepiece of any serious child protection policy online. Treasurer Jim Chalmers framed the penalty increase as necessary to stop tech companies from evading accountability, while the opposition called it an embarrassing admission that oversight of the ban had been disorganised from the start.
Research from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute provided the policy's human context: heavy social media use is directly linked to poor mental health outcomes in adolescents, with twelve and thirteen-year-olds showing particular vulnerability. Crucially, researchers warned that age restrictions alone cannot eliminate these risks — the platforms' engagement-maximising features remain dangerous regardless of who is using them. Whether Australia's regulators have the technical expertise and sustained funding to hold platforms to account, or whether the new fines will function as symbol rather than sanction, remains the open and pressing question.
Australia's government announced on Sunday that it would double the maximum fines for social media platforms that breach the country's ban on under-16s, raising penalties to $99 million and handing the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, expanded powers to investigate and gather information. The move came as research released earlier in the month revealed that roughly 80 percent of young people under 16 remain active on social media platforms despite the ban, which took effect on December 10th. Since that date, the government reported that more than five million accounts have been removed, deactivated, or restricted.
Yet the announcement of stiffer penalties prompted immediate skepticism from academics and policy experts who argue that doubling fines means little without the political will and resources to enforce them. Catherine Page Jeffery, a senior lecturer in media and communications at the University of Sydney, was direct in her assessment: the government needs to move into what she called "enforcement mode." She noted that penalties are toothless if regulators lack the capacity or commitment to deploy them. "There's no point in doubling the penalty if the regulator doesn't enforce them," Jeffery said, pointing out that the persistence of young people on platforms suggests the current approach has failed to achieve its intended effect.
The deeper concern among experts centers not on the age ban itself but on what they see as a fundamental misdirection of policy. Jeffery and others argue that Australia should instead pursue digital duty of care legislation that would place obligations directly on platforms to police their own content and algorithmic systems. Such a framework would require companies to demonstrate that they are actively working to prevent harm, rather than simply removing accounts after the fact. "This digital duty of care is really vital," Jeffery said, "because then it places this obligation on the platforms to be more proactive about making sure their platforms are safe, and that will include more transparency around algorithms." The government has promised to legislate such a framework but remains in consultation about its shape.
The Greens seized on this gap in the government's approach. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young argued that the two major parties had chosen to regulate symptoms rather than causes. "When this legislation was debated, the Greens argued that we needed to regulate the algorithms, not just the symptoms," she said. Her party indicated it would consider supporting the new penalty increases but pledged to push for algorithm regulation as the centerpiece of any serious effort to protect young people online. Treasurer Jim Chalmers acknowledged that tech companies had not been meeting their responsibilities and framed the penalty increase as necessary to prevent them from "wriggling off the hook."
Research from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, released earlier in June, provided the backdrop for this policy debate. The study found a direct link between heavy social media use and poor mental health outcomes in young people, with adolescents aged 12 to 13 showing particular vulnerability. Critically, the researchers warned that age-based restrictions alone would not eliminate these risks. They called for platforms to be held accountable for algorithms and features designed to maximize engagement, even when such engagement exposes young people to harmful content. Elizabeth Handsley, a law professor at Western Sydney University and president of Children and Media Australia, welcomed the alignment of social media penalties with other corporate breach fines under competition law, though she remained cautious about effectiveness. "Whether it's going to be effective, you have to presume the government has done its homework," she told ABC radio.
The opposition, meanwhile, framed the penalty increase as an admission of failure. Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson called it an "embarrassing admission" that the government's oversight of the ban had been "flawed and chaotic." The platforms themselves—TikTok, Snapchat, Meta, Google—did not respond to requests for comment. What remains unclear is whether Australia's regulators possess the technical expertise and sustained funding to investigate platform compliance, or whether the government will treat the new penalties as a symbolic gesture rather than a tool for genuine enforcement.
Notable Quotes
There's no point in doubling the penalty if the regulator doesn't enforce them, and move into the enforcement mode.— Catherine Page Jeffery, University of Sydney media and communications lecturer
When this legislation was debated, the Greens argued that we needed to regulate the algorithms, not just the symptoms.— Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens senator
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would doubling the fine to $99 million not be enough to make platforms comply?
Because a fine only works if someone actually catches you breaking the rule and has the power to collect it. The eSafety Commissioner needs resources, technical expertise, and political backing to investigate what platforms are doing. Without that, the fine is just a number on paper.
But 80 percent of under-16s are still on social media. Doesn't that suggest the ban itself is the problem?
The ban is part of the problem, but not the whole problem. The real issue is that platforms have engineered their systems to be irresistible—algorithms that keep people scrolling, features designed for compulsive use. You can ban under-16s all you want, but if the platforms don't change how they operate, young people will find ways around it, and the harms continue.
What would digital duty of care actually do differently?
It shifts responsibility from the user to the platform. Instead of saying "you can't use this," it says "you must prove your system is safe." Platforms would have to be transparent about how their algorithms work, what content they promote, and what safeguards they've built in. It's preventive rather than punitive.
Is the government actually going to enforce this, or is it just talk?
That's the question everyone is asking. The government has promised to legislate digital duty of care, but it's still consulting on what form it takes. And even with the new penalties, there's no guarantee the eSafety Commissioner will have the budget or staff to investigate every breach. Enforcement requires sustained commitment, not just a bigger fine.
What happens if nothing changes?
Young people keep using platforms, keep experiencing the mental health effects the research documents, and the government looks ineffective. The platforms continue operating as they do now, knowing that enforcement is unlikely. The cycle repeats.