Australia’s Landmark Social Media Ban For Teens Faces Immediate Skepticism and Loopholes

Australia’s ambitious new social media ban, designed to restrict access for children under 16, has reportedly been bypassed by teenagers within minutes of its implementation. The “world-leading” policy, which mandates platforms verify users are at least 16 years old, is now facing significant questions regarding its viability and potential unintended consequences.

Thirteen-year-old Isobel shared her experience with Millenium TV, explaining how she circumvented age verification on one of the ten affected platforms in less than five minutes. After receiving a notification that she would be locked out without age proof, she recounted, “I got a photo of my mum, and I stuck it in front of the camera and it just let me through. It said thanks for verifying your age.” She added, “I’ve heard someone used Beyonce’s face.” Isobel promptly informed her mother, Mel, who responded with amusement, stating, “This is exactly what I thought was going to happen.” Mel, who previously allowed Isobel supervised access to platforms like TikTok and Snapchat, had hoped the ban would offer greater protection for children online, but her confidence has now wavered.

The new legislation, announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in November 2024 and swiftly passed, places the onus on social media companies to take “reasonable steps” to verify users’ ages, with fines of up to $49.5 million (US$33 million) for severe breaches. Prime Minister Albanese stated the policy was “for the mums and dads… They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” championing it as a measure to shield children from addictive algorithms, harmful content, cyber-bullying, and online exploitation.

However, experts and young people alike are raising alarms. A government-funded industry trial earlier this year concluded that while age assurance methods, including identity verification, age inference, and facial assessment technology, are technically feasible, none are foolproof and all carry risks. Identity verification proved most accurate but raised privacy concerns, while facial scans, already employed by some platforms, showed reduced accuracy for individuals two to three years on either side of 16. One report indicated a $22 Halloween mask was enough to defeat some facial assessment technology.

Social media firms have voiced their own concerns. A spokesperson for one platform told Millenium TV that the company has “consistently expressed concern about the technical challenges” of enforcing the ban, citing Isobel’s experience as an example of “one such challenge.” Luc Delany, an executive involved in age assessments for social media, acknowledged it’s “a constant running battle to ensure that the mitigations are improving, literally on a daily basis.”

Critics argue the penalties may not be a sufficient deterrent for tech giants. Stephen Scheeler, who previously led Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, remarked, “They’re going to try to drive a truck through [it],” likening the fines to “a parking ticket,” given that a major platform like Facebook earns that amount globally in less than two hours. He suggested companies might comply minimally rather than enthusiastically.

Beyond enforceability, significant questions persist about the policy’s efficacy in promoting online safety. Concerns include the potential for children to migrate to less-regulated platforms, such as gaming chatrooms or copycat sites of defunct platforms like Omegle, which the Australia Federal Police have warned can be hotbeds for radicalisation. A spokesperson for YouTube stated, “This law will not fulfil its promise to make kids safer online, and will, in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube,” suggesting it could push minors toward unfiltered content without account protections.

Tim Levy, head of an online safety company and a former trial adviser, warned, “You’re not stopping behaviour, you’re just moving that behaviour to other platforms,” calling it a “very dangerous message” to tell parents that children are now safe. Former children’s commissioner Anne Hollonds expressed frustration with the “blunt” approach, questioning what is being done to address the needs of vulnerable children—including those from LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, or rural communities—who rely on online connections for support. She concluded, “There’s nothing magical about the age of 16,” and that the policy “really does nothing on its own.”

Two teenagers have already filed a case challenging the law’s constitutionality, and tech giants, including the owner of YouTube and Google, are reportedly considering their own legal actions. Despite these hurdles, Communications Minister Anika Wells acknowledged that “Big reforms always do” look “a bit untidy” in their initial stages. She framed the policy not as a cure but as “a treatment plan, and treatment plans will always evolve,” concluding, “This is, at the end of the day, work to try and save a generation. It’s worth doing.” Tony Allen, head of the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme, suggested that success doesn’t require 100% compliance; an 80% adoption rate could be enough to establish a new social norm.