How will the social media ban for under-16s be enforced in Australia, and which platforms will be exempt?

How will Australia’s under-16s social media ban be enforced, and which platforms will be exempt?

Australians seeking to access major social networks—Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and X—must verify they are at least 16 years old before using those services once the under-16s ban begins in early December.

Communications Minister Anika Wells has made clear that each platform must take reasonable measures to disable existing accounts for under-16s, block minors from creating new profiles, carry out age checks and guard against any attempts to bypass the rules.

What are the exemptions? The government will waive the ban for services whose primary functions are:

• Sending messages, emails, voice calls or video calls

• Playing online games

• Sharing information about products or services

• Facilitating professional networking or career development

• Providing educational content or resources

• Delivering health-related information

• Enabling communication between schools and students (or their families)

• Supporting interactions between healthcare providers and their patients

The eSafety Commissioner will determine which platforms satisfy these criteria. In practice, services such as LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Roblox and Coursera would likely qualify—and LinkedIn has already argued it does not cater to children. YouTube Kids could theoretically be exempt too, since it disables comments, but neither the government nor YouTube has confirmed if an application will be made.

Other Platforms

Any social media service not specifically exempt under the under-16 ban must implement age-verification systems by early December. This requirement extends to smaller and niche networks—including Bluesky, Donald Trump’s Truth Social, Discord and Twitch—that have yet to be formally identified by government, compelling them to assess whether they fall within the ban’s remit and establish the necessary checks.

Platforms cannot reserve age-screening solely for accounts that appear to belong to minors. Instead, every Australian account must undergo verification to confirm the user is at least 16, ensuring no loophole in self-declaration allows teens to slip through.

The precise mix of verification technologies will be based on a government trial whose full report is due in August. While confirming identity against official documents can be one approach, the law forbids it from being the only accepted method, mandating multiple pathways for consumer choice.

The Australian framework is expected to mirror the United Kingdom’s recent July scheme, which offers methods such as confirming age through a user’s bank or mobile network provider, matching a selfie against photo-ID, or deploying artificial-intelligence-driven facial age estimation.

Platforms may also estimate a user’s age from account metadata and behaviour—for example, anyone who created a Facebook profile in 2010 would now necessarily be over 16. YouTube, for instance, has announced plans to use AI to analyse viewing patterns and other signals to infer age.

Officials accept no system is foolproof and anticipate some under-16s will attempt to evade checks—for example by using virtual private networks (VPNs) to hide their location. The UK’s introduction of mandatory age checks on adult websites triggered a spike in VPN downloads, with four of the top five free apps in the UK App Store being VPN services and Proton VPN reporting an 1,800 per cent increase. Under Australian law, platforms must adopt “reasonable measures” to identify and counter such circumvention tactics.

What if sites don’t comply with the ban?

The eSafety Commissioner will have authority to determine what constitutes “reasonable steps” for keeping under-16s off regulated platforms. Those deemed non-compliant face maximum fines of up to AUD 49.5 million, enforceable in federal court. Communications Minister Anika Wells described the standard as appropriately robust yet adaptable, likening it to “working rules” that require ongoing monitoring and refinement rather than a one-off mandate.