How will Australia enforce the <16 yo social media ban?

Australia’s move to enforce a minimum age for social media use marks more than just a policy shift, it is a world-first move toward a new frontier in legal regulation. This by Tony Baynie

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 introduces a requirement that social media platforms take “reasonable steps” to ensure users under the age of 16 are not able to create accounts. On its face, this appears to be a modest compliance mechanism, but the implications actually run much deeper. At stake is the extent to which the law can govern digital spaces that have long operated outside the full reach of domestic legal frameworks.

By placing obligations directly on platforms, the legislation underscores that the internet is not a jurisdictional vacuum. It is increasingly a regulated domain and, even more so, one where digital citizenship and legal responsibility intersect, and where the rule of law must be reasserted in new forms.

This challenges a long-standing assumption that online environments are governed more by code and policy than by democratic lawmaking. What is notable is the legislative choice to avoid rigid, prescriptive measures. Rather than mandating a single technical solution, the Act adopts a principles-based approach, centred on what are “reasonable steps” in the circumstances. This invites ongoing dialogue between courts, regulators, and platforms, and reflects a growing trend in modern law: regulating fast-moving technologies through adaptable legal standards rather than fixed rules.

Of course, concerns remain. Critics have questioned the enforceability of age verification mechanisms and raised valid points about user privacy, potential overreach, and the risk of disproportionate burdens on smaller platforms. Yet these tensions are not unique to this Act, rather they represent the broader legal challenge of balancing competing rights and interests in an era defined by digital participation.

Away from politics, what this law ultimately affirms is that protecting the vulnerable, in this case, children, remains a core function of public law, even in evolving technological contexts. The legislation is not simply about shielding minors; it is about embedding principles of accountability and care into the architecture of the internet itself. More broadly, the Act reflects a quiet but powerful theme in contemporary legal development: that the legitimacy of the law depends on its ability to adapt. As digital platforms become the new public squares, libraries, playgrounds and classrooms, lawmakers face the pressing task of ensuring that these spaces reflect our shared values; safety, responsibility, and fairness.

In an age of algorithmic governance and borderless platforms, Australia’s approach to regulating online safety may well set a precedent. It signals that while the law cannot always move at the speed of innovation, it can still shape the ethical and institutional guardrails of the digital age.