Australia's government is moving to strengthen enforcement of its landmark social media ban for children under 16, acknowledging that the first year of restrictions has failed to keep young users off major platforms. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Friday that the government would pursue digital duty of care legislation to hold tech platforms accountable for algorithmic harms, while simultaneously reviewing whether existing enforcement tools are sufficient.
The admission of enforcement failure comes as data reveals the scope of non-compliance. The eSafety Commissioner released figures in March showing that seven in 10 underage children continued to hold active accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok since the ban took effect on December 10 last year. A study published in the British Medical Journal on Wednesday found that 85% of Australian 12 to 17-year-olds were using restricted platforms, underscoring the legislative gap between intention and reality.
The Enforcement Challenge
Australia became the first country in the world to pass legislation banning youth from social media when it implemented the restrictions in the first year of the ban. However, the policy's rapid global replication—Britain announced plans last week to ban children under 16, while Canada, Brazil, Indonesia, France, Spain, Denmark, Thailand and South Korea are studying similar approaches—has not been accompanied by demonstrated success in enforcement.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant indicated in April that she was considering court action against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, alleging insufficient compliance with removal requirements. These platforms, along with X, Kick, Reddit, Threads and Twitch, face potential fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($34 million) for failing to take reasonable steps to remove underage accounts.
Grant acknowledged the structural limits of her office's authority. In an interview reported by the Sydney Morning Herald in early June, she stated, "I don't have potent powers," and added, "What I would say is a regulator is only as good as the tools and the resources that they are given."
Expanding Regulatory Authority
Albanese said Friday that the government was asking whether laws were as strong as possible and whether the eSafety Commissioner had every power at her disposal. The proposed digital duty of care legislation represents a significant expansion of regulatory authority, shifting responsibility from users and parents to platforms themselves by mandating accountability for "foreseeable harms caused by content and algorithms."
Lisa Given, an information sciences expert at Melbourne's RMIT University, characterized the ban as failing and noted that enforcement faced a fundamental obstacle: platforms were actively resisting compliance. Given stated, "Either the eSafety Commissioner needs more powers or we've got to have some other approach to enforcement." She predicted that courts would need to interpret what constitutes "reasonable steps" under the law—a determination that could significantly alter the practical scope of platform obligations.
The timing of the legislative push reflects political pressure following the data releases and international attention. Given noted that children themselves have publicly expressed skepticism about the ban's effectiveness, suggesting that both enforcement and social acceptance of the restrictions have deteriorated.
Why This Matters:
Australia's pivot toward expanded digital duty of care legislation signals that voluntary compliance and existing enforcement mechanisms have proven inadequate, raising questions about whether regulatory expansion can succeed where initial restrictions failed. The gap between legislative intent and enforcement outcome—with 70-85% non-compliance rates—demonstrates the practical limits of government mandates when platforms control the technical and operational mechanisms of compliance. The proposed shift toward holding companies liable for algorithmic harms represents a fundamental change in regulatory philosophy, moving from age-based access restrictions to content and algorithm accountability. As other nations adopt similar bans, Australia's enforcement struggles suggest that legislative solutions alone may not address the underlying market dynamics driving platform adoption among minors. The expansion of the eSafety Commissioner's powers and the introduction of duty of care standards will test whether regulatory authority can effectively constrain corporate behavior in digital markets, or whether such efforts require different approaches to governance and enforcement.