Major social media companies have cautioned the Australian government against over-relying on early data regarding its landmark ban for users under 16 years old. This warning comes as lawmakers consider stricter penalties and increased investigative powers for regulators.
The caution follows studies, including one from Australia's internet regulator, indicating that approximately 80% of minors continued to use social media platforms months after the ban took effect in December. This persistent usage highlights a significant challenge in enforcing age restrictions across digital platforms.
This situation fits into a broader global discussion about regulating social media and protecting young users. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to balance free expression with safeguarding children from potential online harms. The Australian ban represents a bold step in this ongoing regulatory push, with other nations closely observing its implementation and effectiveness.
Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, from Australia's eSafety Commissioner, told the inquiry that March data suggested platforms were "failing to prevent the creation and recreation of accounts." However, she also insisted the ban showed early signs of working, citing a modest decline in underage accounts. "We are seeing change but we need to give it time," Inman Grant stated, emphasizing that active enforcement would drive behavioral changes.
The inquiry is examining amendments that could double maximum penalties to A$99 million (approximately GHS 860 million). These amendments would also expand the commissioner's powers to compel information and documents from platforms and their third-party age assurance providers during investigations. This move underscores the government's determination to ensure compliance and hold tech companies accountable.
Rachel Lord, YouTube's head of government relations, told the inquiry that the current data represented "a point in time, it's very early on." She cautioned against "over-reliance on that," noting the government's latest compliance data was from March. Lord explained that age assurance technology had largely been built around an 18-year-old cut-off, which many jurisdictions consider the transition to adulthood. She added that "the technologies that we are using to detect users at the 16 age boundary are evolving."
Mia Garlick, Meta's Australia head of public policy, suggested that the research data might not accurately reflect whether underage users actually held accounts. "There can be differences in terms of people accessing versus having an account," she told the inquiry. Garlick noted that "survey data is challenging in terms of stated versus revealed" behavior, implying a gap between what users claim and their actual platform usage.
Despite these caveats, social media firms have reported significant efforts to remove underage accounts. Meta released figures showing it had deactivated 756,000 Instagram and Facebook accounts suspected of belonging to underage users. This number is an increase from about 500,000 accounts deactivated in March. Similarly, YouTube's Lord stated that Google had prevented approximately 740,000 holders of Google accounts from using their accounts on YouTube due to age restrictions.
TikTok's Australian head of public policy, Jessica Loftstedt, described the company's compliance efforts as an "iterative process." She reported that TikTok had removed 550,000 accounts when the law first took effect. Since then, the company has continued to remove about 24,000 accounts each month, demonstrating ongoing efforts to enforce the age ban. These figures highlight the scale of the challenge and the continuous work required from platforms.
The implications are significant for both tech companies and regulatory bodies globally. This ongoing debate will likely shape future digital regulations and age verification standards across various jurisdictions. Decision-makers and markets will closely watch how Australia's ban evolves and whether the proposed tougher penalties lead to more effective compliance from social media giants. The outcome could set a precedent for how governments manage online safety for minors.