Blab Tech
Australia Strengthens Social Media Age-Restriction Enforcement with New eSafety Powers
In a decisive move on Tuesday, the Australian government pushed an amendment through federal parliament that expands the eSafety Commissioner’s authority to enforce the country’s social‑media age‑restriction law. The change gives the regulator the power to obtain documents from platforms and related third‑party providers, and it doubles the maximum penalty for non‑compliance to A$99 million.
The amendment arrives as Australia’s landmark digital‑duty‑of‑care legislation is being prepared for introduction. It follows the December 2023 enactment of the Online Safety Act’s age‑restriction provision, which requires major social‑media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. The law places responsibility on platforms, not on young users, and it does not penalise teenagers for using the services.
A recent study that tracked more than 400 Australian teenagers before and after the age‑restriction law took effect provides the clearest evidence of compliance challenges. Three months after the law’s implementation, more than 85 % of participants under 16 were still using platforms covered by the regulation, most through their own accounts. While 15 % to 19 % of those who tried to use a restricted service reported creating fake accounts and 6 % to 11 % used private browsers, the study found that only about two‑thirds of under‑16 users encountered any sophisticated age check. Common methods were simple age declaration or selfie uploads.
The research concluded that the legislation had not produced a substantial immediate reduction in social‑media use among under‑16s, highlighting a gap between passing an age restriction and enforcing it.
The amendment seeks to close that gap. The most significant change is to the eSafety Commissioner’s information‑gathering powers. The commissioner will now be able to demand documents—not just information—from social‑media companies that show what they have done or failed to do to enforce age restrictions. The amendment also allows the commissioner to obtain information or documents from other people and organisations that the regulator believes may hold relevant evidence.
This broader reach is intended to address the fact that platforms operate within a larger digital ecosystem. Age‑verification systems are often supplied by third‑party vendors, and app stores sit between platforms and users. By being able to request data from these parties, the regulator can independently assess whether a platform’s approach is actually working.
The bill also increases the maximum fine for breach of the age‑restriction provision. The new cap of A$99 million aligns the penalty with other corporate regulations in Australia, such as competition and privacy law. The 2024 Rickard Review of the Online Safety Act recommended that courts should be able to impose penalties that reflect a percentage of a company’s global turnover—up to 5 % if that amount is greater. Other countries use similar mechanisms in their online‑safety laws.
Experts say the amendment will give the regulator stronger evidence‑gathering tools and a larger deterrent. However, they also caution that the amendment’s effectiveness will be limited by the inherent challenges of age verification and the fact that teenagers will continue to find ways around restrictions.
The amendment is part of a broader shift toward a digital‑duty‑of‑care framework that Australia is developing. While age restrictions focus on keeping young people out of potentially harmful environments, a duty of care requires platforms to identify and reduce foreseeable harms across all digital services. The new legislation therefore complements the upcoming duty‑of‑care reforms by tightening enforcement of the existing age‑restriction rule.
As of now, the amendment has been tabled in parliament and is awaiting debate. The eSafety Commissioner has not yet issued a statement on the amendment’s passage, but the Australian government has indicated that the changes will be implemented once the bill receives parliamentary approval.
The amendment’s passage will mark a significant step in Australia’s ongoing effort to protect children online, but it also underscores the complexity of regulating a rapidly evolving digital ecosystem.
The amendment arrives as Australia’s landmark digital‑duty‑of‑care legislation is being prepared for introduction. It follows the December 2023 enactment of the Online Safety Act’s age‑restriction provision, which requires major social‑media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. The law places responsibility on platforms, not on young users, and it does not penalise teenagers for using the services.
A recent study that tracked more than 400 Australian teenagers before and after the age‑restriction law took effect provides the clearest evidence of compliance challenges. Three months after the law’s implementation, more than 85 % of participants under 16 were still using platforms covered by the regulation, most through their own accounts. While 15 % to 19 % of those who tried to use a restricted service reported creating fake accounts and 6 % to 11 % used private browsers, the study found that only about two‑thirds of under‑16 users encountered any sophisticated age check. Common methods were simple age declaration or selfie uploads.
The research concluded that the legislation had not produced a substantial immediate reduction in social‑media use among under‑16s, highlighting a gap between passing an age restriction and enforcing it.
The amendment seeks to close that gap. The most significant change is to the eSafety Commissioner’s information‑gathering powers. The commissioner will now be able to demand documents—not just information—from social‑media companies that show what they have done or failed to do to enforce age restrictions. The amendment also allows the commissioner to obtain information or documents from other people and organisations that the regulator believes may hold relevant evidence.
This broader reach is intended to address the fact that platforms operate within a larger digital ecosystem. Age‑verification systems are often supplied by third‑party vendors, and app stores sit between platforms and users. By being able to request data from these parties, the regulator can independently assess whether a platform’s approach is actually working.
The bill also increases the maximum fine for breach of the age‑restriction provision. The new cap of A$99 million aligns the penalty with other corporate regulations in Australia, such as competition and privacy law. The 2024 Rickard Review of the Online Safety Act recommended that courts should be able to impose penalties that reflect a percentage of a company’s global turnover—up to 5 % if that amount is greater. Other countries use similar mechanisms in their online‑safety laws.
Experts say the amendment will give the regulator stronger evidence‑gathering tools and a larger deterrent. However, they also caution that the amendment’s effectiveness will be limited by the inherent challenges of age verification and the fact that teenagers will continue to find ways around restrictions.
The amendment is part of a broader shift toward a digital‑duty‑of‑care framework that Australia is developing. While age restrictions focus on keeping young people out of potentially harmful environments, a duty of care requires platforms to identify and reduce foreseeable harms across all digital services. The new legislation therefore complements the upcoming duty‑of‑care reforms by tightening enforcement of the existing age‑restriction rule.
As of now, the amendment has been tabled in parliament and is awaiting debate. The eSafety Commissioner has not yet issued a statement on the amendment’s passage, but the Australian government has indicated that the changes will be implemented once the bill receives parliamentary approval.
The amendment’s passage will mark a significant step in Australia’s ongoing effort to protect children online, but it also underscores the complexity of regulating a rapidly evolving digital ecosystem.
