Australia's government is preparing to fortify legislation designed to keep children away from social media platforms, acknowledging that the groundbreaking law introduced last December has not achieved its intended effect. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed in Parliament on June 25 that officials are examining ways to make the restrictions more robust, marking a significant policy shift just six months after Australia became the first nation globally to implement such sweeping age-based restrictions.
The original ban, which took effect in December, targeted users under a certain age on major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and several others. However, enforcement has proven considerably more challenging than anticipated. Data released by the eSafety Commissioner in March demonstrated that compliance remains minimal, with approximately seven in ten underage users continuing to maintain active accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok despite the legislative prohibition. This striking failure rate has prompted the government to reconsider its enforcement mechanisms and regulatory framework.
Albanese framed the review as part of ongoing due diligence, telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that authorities are asking whether existing laws possess sufficient strength and whether eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant possesses adequate tools to enforce compliance. The Prime Minister emphasised that protecting young Australians from social media's effects differs fundamentally from challenges facing previous generations, necessitating careful policy development. The government is simultaneously pursuing digital duty of care legislation that would impose accountability on platforms for foreseeable harms stemming from their content algorithms and recommendation systems.
Australia's approach has inspired rapid international movement on the issue, though implementations vary considerably. Britain has announced plans to restrict users under 16 from accessing various platforms, while Canada, Brazil, and Indonesia have each introduced their own forms of age-based restrictions or legislative frameworks. France, Spain, Denmark, Thailand, and South Korea are among numerous countries currently developing or examining comparable regulatory approaches, indicating growing global concern about children's unregulated access to social media ecosystems.
The regulatory framework carries substantial financial consequences for non-compliance. Platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Kick, Reddit, Threads, and Twitch face potential penalties reaching A$49.5 million (approximately US$34 million or RM139 million) if they fail to implement reasonable measures to prevent underage account creation and maintenance. Despite these significant financial incentives, platforms have largely resisted aggressive enforcement efforts, suggesting that existing legislative provisions may lack sufficient clarity regarding what constitutes adequate protective action.
Lisa Given, an information sciences expert at Melbourne's RMIT University, characterises the situation as a clear policy failure requiring fundamental reconsideration. Given notes that internal eSafety Commissioner data itself demonstrates the ban's ineffectiveness, while additional research cited in public commentary further supports this assessment. She observes that media reports indicate young Australians themselves recognise the legislative approach as unsuccessful, suggesting that regulatory intentions have not translated into practical reality.
Given identifies a crucial structural constraint underlying enforcement difficulties: regulatory bodies function effectively only when equipped with appropriate legal powers and adequate resources. The eSafety Commissioner, despite possessing genuine authority, apparently operates within constraints that limit her capacity to compel platform compliance. Given suggests that courts may ultimately need to interpret what constitutes "reasonable steps" required under the legislation, as platforms continue resisting aggressive enforcement interpretations. This indicates that regulatory clarity remains absent even within the legislative text, leaving enforcement decisions contested and inconsistent.
Inman Grant signalled in April that she was considering court action against major platforms, alleging inadequate efforts to remove underage accounts. This contemplated legal action represents a significant escalation, suggesting that negotiation and regulatory pressure have proven insufficient. The eSafety Commissioner's office declined to provide immediate comment when contacted by international media outlets regarding reporting accuracy on June 26, maintaining a measured public posture even as enforcement tensions mount.
The emerging consensus among policy experts and regulators suggests that successful enforcement requires either substantially expanded eSafety Commissioner authority or fundamentally different enforcement mechanisms altogether. Digital duty of care legislation represents the government's attempt to address this through a broader framework making platforms liable for harms flowing from their algorithmic systems and content moderation practices. This approach potentially creates stronger incentives for platform compliance than simple account-removal mandates, though implementation details remain to be finalised.
For Malaysian policymakers observing these developments, Australia's experience offers instructive lessons about the practical difficulties of regulating global technology platforms through national legislation alone. Malaysia, alongside other Southeast Asian nations, faces similar challenges in protecting young users while respecting platform business models. The Australian case demonstrates that legislative intent requires substantial enforcement capacity, regulatory clarity, and potentially novel legal theories regarding corporate responsibility to achieve measurable results in this complex policy domain.
