In a world where social media has become integral to communication, education, and entertainment, the Australian Government has taken a decisive step to regulate its youngest users. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 (Cth) will introduce a minimum age requirement of 16 for social media accounts, marking a significant shift in digital policy.
Set to take full effect by late 2025, this legislation places the onus on platforms to enforce stricter age verification measures or face fines of up to AUD $50 million. While the move is aimed at protecting young Australians from online harms, it raises a host of legal, practical, and ethical concerns for businesses, parents, and digital rights advocates alike.
Law vs. Likes
The reforms amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), granting the eSafety Commissioner greater enforcement powers to ensure compliance. Social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) will be required to implement robust age verification mechanisms to prevent access by users under 16.
Organisations failing to take reasonable steps to uphold these restrictions could face substantial penalties, signalling the government’s firm stance on digital accountability. However, the law exempts platforms that serve predominantly educational or health-related purposes, such as Google Classroom and Kids Helpline.
While protecting young users from cyberbullying, predatory behaviour, and inappropriate content is a valid policy goal, critics argue that enforcement will be fraught with technical and privacy challenges.
From Rules to Reality – Can the Social Media Ban Be Enforced?
Age verification remains a contentious issue, with no universal method that is both secure and privacy-compliant. Many platforms currently rely on self-declaration, which has proven ineffective. More stringent alternatives—such as requiring government ID or facial recognition—pose significant data privacy risks and could exclude marginalised communities who lack formal identification.
Moreover, a blanket ban does not eliminate risk—it may merely push young users towards less regulated platforms or incentivise the use of VPNs and fake accounts, making online safety harder to monitor.
Monica Allen, Special Counsel, highlights the practical implications:
“The law’s intent is commendable, but its execution remains uncertain. The enforcement burden on platforms is significant, and compliance measures must carefully balance child protection with privacy concerns. Otherwise, we risk creating an environment where underage users simply shift to less accountable digital spaces.”
The law requires social media platforms to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services, but it does not specify exactly how this should be enforced. Without clear, standardised guidelines for age verification, platforms are left to determine a users age with their own methods—whether through ID checks, AI verification, or other measures. This creates uncertainty, as businesses may face legal consequences if their chosen approach is later deemed inadequate. Instead of achieving a straightforward solution, the lack of clear direction could result in companies carrying the legal risk while young users find ways to bypass restrictions.
Legal Risks, Business Blows, and Unintended Consequences
The consequences of this legislation extend beyond platform liability. Businesses relying on youth engagement in digital marketing, influencer partnerships, or social media-driven advertising will likely need to revise their strategies.
For employers, social media policies may require updating to ensure compliance with evolving regulations. Additionally, content creators and influencers targeting youth demographics may face reduced audience reach, impacting commercial viability.
Regulators will need to clarify how enforcement will work across international platforms—a complex jurisdictional challenge given the global nature of digital interactions.
A Fine Line Between Protection and Overregulation
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 reflects a growing international trend towards tighter online regulation, aligning Australia with countries like the UK, which has child safety-by-design laws. However, its long-term success will depend on how effectively it is implemented.
For legal practitioners and businesses navigating defamation, privacy, and regulatory compliance, this law adds yet another layer of legal complexity. The challenge will be striking a balance between child safety, privacy rights, and digital access, ensuring that regulation does not become an exercise in overreach.
As digital regulation evolves, the enforcement of social media age restrictions will be closely watched. How effectively platforms implement these measures—and whether the law achieves its intended purpose without unintended consequences—remains to be seen. Businesses, legal professionals, and policymakers alike will need to navigate this shifting landscape carefully, ensuring compliance while monitoring the broader impact on digital access, privacy, and online engagement.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Julie Mehrdawi is a passionate and dedicated member of our team, excelling in Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law and Regulatory Advice, Employment Law and Defamation Law. Julie’s commitment to staying at the forefront of legal advancements in our clients' industries ensures she is able to successfully identify and mitigate legal risks, safeguarding our clients interests.
Julie’s takes great pride in her approachable nature, which allows her to collaborate closely with clients and provide tailored, expert legal advice and representation that allows her clients to succeed.
Julie is able to leverage her diverse background and think outside the box to deliver comprehensive, pragmatic, and holistic solutions for her clients in every area of law.
