Australia’s New Under-16 Social Media Restrictions: What The Law Really Means

Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Age Restrictions: What the Law Really Does – And What It Means for Young People, Families and the Justice System

From midnight tonight, Australia will become the first nation to legally require that children under 16 must not hold accounts on major social media platforms. Although widely labelled a “ban”, the reform introduced by the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 (Cth)¹ is more accurately described as a mandatory delay in accessing account-based features. The initiative has been described as world-leading by the Prime Minister Albanese², a “grand experiment” by the New York Times³, and by eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, a central element of the Commonwealth’s broader online safety framework⁴.

But what does this mean for you and your family, and what does the law actually do? Importantly, how do such changes interact with criminal law and human rights protections in Victoria. While this article doesn’t delve deep into the world of Commonwealth prosecutions, I have no doubt that my previous colleagues at the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have their own concerns surrounding the amendments, particularly when it comes to the prosecution of those who target children and young people across online platforms.

What the new law does

The Amendment Act introduces Subdivision D — Social Media Minimum Age into the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth). It inserts definitions in section 5 for ‘age restricted social media platform’ and ‘age restricted user’ being someone under the age of 16, and requires ‘designated social media platforms’⁵ to take reasonable steps to prevent an aged-restricted user from creating or maintaining accounts⁶. Platforms that fail to comply may be liable for civil penalties of up to 150,000 penalty units, currently valued at $46.95 million AUD⁷. Essentially, shifting responsibility from children and parents onto platforms, on the basis that they are best placed to design and enforce safety measures⁸.

One might be interested to find that neither children nor parents commit an offence if a young person accesses social media content. As confirmed by Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, the law imposes obligations only on platforms⁹.

Is this actually a “ban”?

Understandably, you may be confused and wondering, so, what is actually banned? Despite widespread media framing, the law does not ban children from accessing social media content, nor does it prevent it absolutely. Rather, young people may continue to browse publicly accessible posts, videos and information without logging in¹⁰.

The restriction, or ban applies only to account ownership, not passive viewing. It aligns with the Government’s approach that the measure is a delay rather than a prohibition, comparable to age thresholds for alcohol, gambling or driving.

Why the change?

Essentially, it seems from the Explanatory Memorandum, that the amendments intend to address concerns regarding the impact of early social media exposure, including cyberbullying, harmful content, addictive engagement patterns and predatory behaviour¹¹. The Prime Minister has highlighted the powerful role of families who have suffered harm linked to online environments in driving reform¹².

International observers are closely watching Australia’s approach, with regulators in Denmark, Malaysia and the European Union are considering similar restrictions¹³.

Which platforms are affected

The eSafety Commissioner lists the platforms which are considered ‘designated social media platforms’ for the purpose of the act. As at 21 November 2025 the listed designated social media platforms are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Threads, Reddit, X (Twitter), Twitch and Kick¹⁴, while messaging-dominant services such as WhatsApp, Messenger and Discord remain excluded due to their primary functionality.

Due to the ever-evolving world that is social media, the list remains under review and is subject to change.

How age will be verified

Platforms must use age assurance technologies. Traditional ID verification may be used but cannot be the only method relied upon¹⁵. Additional mechanisms include facial age estimation, which uses artificial intelligence to approximate a user’s age, and age inference techniques based on behavioural and account data (including activity patterns during school hours, interaction habits and voice analysis)¹⁶.

When it comes to privacy and protection of one’s data, the Act requires that all data obtained must be destroyed once used for verification.¹⁷

Human Rights Considerations and a Constitutional Challenge

So, what about the rights of our young ones? Australia’s age restriction regime does not operate in isolation. It intersects with both the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and the wider constitutional principles that govern political communication.

In Victoria, several Charter rights are directly engaged. These include the right to privacy, freedom of expression, children’s rights to special protection, and the right to participate in public life. Implementing age assurance technologies (particularly those involving biometric data) raises significant questions about whether the measures are proportionate, necessary and the least restrictive approach available.

On a broader landscape, the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights accompanying the Bill states that the reform is compatible with the ICCPR and Convention on the Rights of the Child ¹⁸. While it acknowledges limitations on freedom of expression and privacy, it argues that these are necessary and proportionate to achieve child safety.
Time will tell how such amendments will impact young people who rely heavily on online communities (particularly LGBTQIA+ youth, neurodivergent adolescents and those in out-of-home care) and may lose access to important support networks. We suspect that concerns may arise about biometric verification, particularly in relation to data privacy and discrimination which are likely to influence future reviews and judicial consideration.

Two 15-year-old students from New South Wales may not old enough for social media, nor to vote or to be liable for criminal offending, they can and have initiated a High Court challenge, arguing that the age restrictions impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication. They contend that social media is the primary forum for political engagement and expression for young people, and account removal effectively excludes them from participating in public discourse.

The Commonwealth argues that young people may still access information passively while logged out, and that the protective purpose of the law justifies its imposition. We are eagerly watching this space as the High Court’s eventual ruling will be significant for the future of digital rights and online regulation.

Interaction with criminal law in Victoria & the Commonwealth

Although the reform does not create offences for children, it has implications for Victorian and Commonwealth criminal practice.
Attempts to bypass verification processes by providing another person’s ID, falsified documents or manipulated biometric data may produce evidence of identity offences, false document use or deception under Victorian law and parents assisting their children may inadvertently engage in similar conduct.

Victorian courts regularly impose social media restrictions in bail, Community Correction Orders, Family Violence Intervention Orders, Personal Safety Intervention Orders and Youth Justice supervision. The new regime adds an additional layer of scrutiny to the digital behaviour of individuals subject to such orders and as we understand it, alleged breaches will still be prosecuted under existing Victorian criminal law.

The introduction of age assurance technologies also expands the categories of digital evidence available to law enforcement. Age verification logs, biometric assessment records and behavioural data may be sought under warrant in matters involving stalking, image-based abuse, family violence, grooming or child exploitation. We suspect that defence practitioners and prosecutors will face emerging challenges relating to admissibility, reliability and proportionality of evidence in criminal proceedings.

In closing

Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions are a landmark policy intervention shaped by child-safety concerns, parental advocacy and rapid technological change. Although directed at platforms rather than young people, the reforms sit within a complex legal environment that includes criminal law, privacy law, child rights frameworks and constitutional protections.

For Victorian families, the most significant risks arise not from the age restriction itself but from the interaction between online behaviour, identity verification, court-imposed conditions and the increasing availability of digital evidence and we suspect that the High Court’s forthcoming decision will play a critical role in defining the legal boundaries of digital regulation.

Lawsworth will continue to monitor developments and provide tailored advice to families, young people and practitioners as this legal landscape evolves. For guidance on how these reforms intersect with criminal charges, intervention orders or youth justice matters, our team is available to assist. Ayla Dodson, Senior Associate and Head of Criminal Law at Lawsworth, leads our Victorian criminal practice and holds a Master of Laws specialising in Human Rights. Ayla is well-placed to advise on the emerging interface between online safety reforms, children’s rights, and the criminal justice system.