Australia Prepares Legal Action Against Five Platforms Over Under-16 Social Media Ban

Five platforms face a Federal Court case

Australia is preparing legal action against Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube over alleged failures to keep children under 16 from holding accounts, with potential penalties now reaching A$109.2 million. Communications Minister Anika Wells said in Sydney on October 19, 2026, that she expected proceedings against all five platforms.

The planned action follows months of investigations by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. An evaluation published in July found that most children who had social media accounts before the restrictions began could retain them or create new ones three months after implementation, mainly because effective age checks were missing.

The restrictions took effect on December 10, 2025. They require platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts. Children, parents and carers face no penalties. Responsibility rests with the companies operating the services.

Wells said Inman Grant was using expanded investigative powers to collect evidence for the Federal Court. Those powers allow the regulator to demand company documents and require current or former employees to answer questions.

Speaking about the commissioner, Wells described the preparations:

Now she has more powers to be able to gather the evidence that she needs to take those five companies to the Federal Court," Wells said. "She's now using those powers to prepare her case.

No filing date was given. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and eSafety had no immediate comment. Snap, TikTok, its owner ByteDance, and YouTube parent Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

What companies must do under the law

The legal obligation comes from amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021 passed in November 2024. The government's minimum age guidance says platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from having accounts.

For a court case, eSafety must examine the systems a company uses, the measures available to it, their effectiveness, their costs and other effects. In plain language, the central question is whether the company has built and operated suitable safeguards to enforce the age restriction.

The government's definition covers services built around social interaction, connections between users and the ability to post material. It also considers features such as recommendations linked to an account, endless scrolling, visible likes and disappearing stories.

Rules made on July 29, 2025, exclude specified categories, including messaging, online gaming, professional networking, education and health support services. Children can continue using those services. eSafety published regulatory guidance for industry on September 16, 2025, before the account restrictions began.

The investigation reaches beyond account totals

eSafety's March compliance update identified Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube as the focus of five investigations. The regulator had issued 23 legally enforceable information gathering notices to 10 platforms.

The wider group also included Kick, Reddit, Threads, Twitch and X. By early March, more than 310,000 additional accounts had been prevented from accessing platforms. These were account numbers; a child can hold accounts on several services.

Investigators were checking how company systems had been designed and put into operation, testing services and validating information already obtained. eSafety also described research and discussions with platforms and providers of age checking technology.

The March update set a target of deciding on at least some enforcement action by the middle of 2026. In July, eSafety said investigations were continuing and concerns remained about all five platforms, despite some improvements by industry.

Two studies show fewer accounts, with different measures

eSafety's March compliance update drew on a survey of 898 parents and carers of children aged eight to 15, conducted between January 19 and February 2, 2026. They reported that account ownership fell from 49.7% before the restrictions to 31.3% afterward, a decline of 18.4 percentage points.

A separate evaluation, published on July 31, used data collected in March. That study found account ownership among children under 16 fell from 52.4% to 42.1%, a decline of 10.3 percentage points. The surveys covered different groups and collection periods, so their results describe different snapshots of the early months.

The July evaluation release also tracked social media use with or without an account. That measure fell from 85.9% before implementation to 81.5% three months later, a decline of 4.4 percentage points.

The smaller change in use matters for families. Account ownership and access to content are different activities, and the law places its obligation on preventing underage accounts. The evaluation's figures show that social media continued to occupy a large place in children's lives during the first three months.

Missing age checks left accounts open

Parents in the earlier survey described a substantial gap in enforcement. Among those whose children retained an account, 66.8% said the platform had not yet asked the child to verify their age. This was the most common explanation for continued account ownership.

Among parents who said their child had an account on a particular service before December 10, the proportion reporting that the account remained was 63.6% for Facebook, 69.1% for Instagram, 69.4% for Snapchat and 69.3% for TikTok. YouTube's figure was 48.5%.

Those percentages describe children who previously held accounts on each platform. Across the four other services, roughly two in three or more retained accounts, compared with about half on YouTube.

eSafety also received more than 760 submissions through its minimum age reporting form during the first three months. Recurring concerns involved children retaining or regaining accounts and platforms appearing to take little action after receiving reports about underage users.

Stronger powers and a higher penalty ceiling

The government has doubled the maximum penalty to A$109.2 million since the restrictions began, according to Wells. The current government guidance lists that amount, while eSafety's March update listed an earlier ceiling of A$49.5 million. The figures reflect guidance published at different stages of the enforcement regime.

The regulator has several enforcement options. Its March update listed public notifications, enforceable undertakings, infringement notices, court injunctions and applications for civil penalties. An enforceable undertaking is a commitment a company makes that can be enforced through a court; an injunction is a court order requiring action or restraint.

Wells said the expanded powers were now helping Inman Grant prepare the evidence needed for proceedings. eSafety is an independent regulator accountable to Parliament through the communications minister.

At the National Press Club on October 15, Wells said the government would pursue companies over compliance:

We won't flinch at holding tech companies to account.

How the restrictions and investigation developed

The planned proceedings follow nearly a year of implementation and several stages of evidence gathering. The sequence also explains why findings published in July describe children's experiences in March.

• November 2024: Parliament amended the Online Safety Act 2021 to introduce the social media minimum age obligation.
• July 29, 2025: The communications minister made rules specifying excluded categories of services.
• September 16, 2025: eSafety released regulatory guidance on reasonable steps for compliance.
• December 10, 2025: The account restrictions took effect.
• March 2026: eSafety published its first compliance update, identifying five investigations and a target for some enforcement decisions by the middle of 2026.
• July 31, 2026: eSafety published early evaluation findings based on data collected three months after implementation and said investigations were ongoing.
• October 15 and 19, 2026: Wells publicly pressed the companies over compliance and said she expected legal action against all five platforms.

In its July announcement, eSafety said a second compliance update would follow in the coming weeks. Its longer evaluation programme will release findings through public reports and academic publications across 2026, 2027 and 2028.

Families report less pressure and some lost connections

The July evaluation found that the share of children who felt they were missing out because they did not have social media fell from 43.3% to 36.3%. Parents also reported less pressure and were less likely to see social media use as common among their children's peers.

Most children and parents said the restrictions had not yet affected them at the three month stage. Smaller groups described different experiences: some children found communication harder or felt less connected to friends, while others reported better relationships, greater online safety and less pressure to use social media.

Parental awareness of children's social media use declined in some groups, particularly among girls and children aged 10 to 12. For families, that finding makes conversations about actual online activity especially relevant, including which accounts children still use.

The evaluation is following more than 4,000 children and families over two years. eSafety is working with Stanford University Social Media Lab and an independent Academic Advisory Group to track experiences and the relationship between social media use and wellbeing.

Age checks bring privacy concerns into focus

The government's technology work examined several ways of checking age. They include verifying age using evidence, estimating it, inferring it from other information and conducting repeated checks. These methods fall under the broader term age assurance, meaning processes used to assess whether someone meets an age requirement.

The Age Check Certification Scheme conducted the technology trial independently of government as part of Australia's A$6.5 million Age Assurance Trial. Its findings helped inform eSafety's guidance on reasonable steps for platforms.

Government commissioned consumer research found that around nine in 10 adults supported age assurance. Among children who would use a website that checked age, 73% understood why websites performed those checks.

The research also found low trust in digital platforms to handle personal information securely, especially among people who had experienced a data breach. Companies implementing age checks therefore face two concrete responsibilities: enforcing the account restriction and handling information collected during those checks securely.

The immediate focus is now the evidence Inman Grant is gathering and the court proceedings Wells expects. The longer evaluation will track whether changes in accounts, access and family experiences continue beyond the early months.

Key Points

• Wells expects legal action against Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube over alleged breaches of Australia's minimum age rules.
• The restrictions began on December 10, 2025. Platforms carry the legal obligation; children, parents and carers face no penalties.
• The maximum penalty is now A$109.2 million, and eSafety has expanded evidence gathering powers.
• The July evaluation found underage account ownership fell from 52.4% to 42.1% during the first three months, while many existing users retained or recreated accounts.
• Missing age checks were a central concern. eSafety is examining company systems and processes to assess compliance.
• No court filing date was given. Further evaluation findings are scheduled across 2026, 2027 and 2028.