Social Media Age Checks Spread Worldwide as Safety Rules Test Privacy and Access

From checking content to checking users

Australia's proposed exclusion of social media users under 16 carries potential fines of up to AU$50 million for platforms that fail to comply. Vietnam's Decree 147, effective since December 2024, requires all social media users to verify their accounts with a national ID or local phone number. The two approaches capture a widening shift in internet regulation: governments are setting rules for who can enter digital spaces, alongside rules for what people can publish there.

As of June 26, 2025, countries across the Asia Pacific, Europe and the United States are enacting or debating tighter age and identity requirements. Some measures focus on protecting children. Others require identity checks for a much broader population, bringing privacy, anonymity and government access to personal information into the same debate.

For users, the practical change can be simple but consequential. Opening or keeping an account may require more than entering a birthday. A platform might ask for a document, a phone number, a credit card or a facial image. A national digital identity system could also become the route into an online service.

Age verification and identity verification serve different purposes. An age check determines whether someone meets an age requirement. An identity check connects an account to a particular person. Governments and companies are exploring systems that combine those tasks, while others aim to confirm age without revealing a user's full identity.

Why governments want stronger checks

Cyberbullying, exposure to explicit content, online grooming and concerns about young people's mental health have increased pressure on lawmakers. Online grooming involves someone building a child's trust in order to exploit them. Governments argue that stronger access controls can reduce children's exposure to these dangers.

A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that 67% of teens used TikTok, compared with 32% who used Facebook. Those figures show how deeply social media is woven into young people's lives, while also showing that their use varies substantially between platforms.

Amnesty International has reported that more than half of young users have experienced racism, bullying or unwanted sexual advances online. Such experiences have helped move the policy debate beyond removing individual harmful posts toward checking the people who use a service.

Supporters say reliable verification can protect minors from inappropriate content, reduce opportunities for predators, improve compliance with privacy and child protection laws, and make people more accountable for abuse or illegal activity. The central challenge is that the information collected to enforce those protections can itself be sensitive.

Children also use online spaces for support and participation. Restricting access therefore changes more than entertainment habits: it can affect where young people find communities and whether vulnerable users can seek help.

Asia Pacific takes different routes

Vietnam's Decree 147 requires social media users to verify accounts through a national ID or local phone number. Offshore platforms must store user data locally and provide it to authorities upon request. Effective from December 2024, the decree forms part of a broader effort to combat misinformation and cybercrime.

Critics warn that Vietnam's requirements could suppress free speech and weaken privacy. Linking an account to identifying information can make people easier to trace, while local storage and access by authorities increase the government's reach over information held by foreign platforms.

Australia is moving forward with what may become the world's strictest social media age verification law. The legislation introduced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese bans users under 16 from major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Platforms are required to implement robust age checks within 12 months of passage.

Australia's checks could range from verifying documents to estimating age through biometric technology. The eSafety Commissioner will oversee compliance, and companies face fines of up to AU$50 million for violations. Supporters welcome the focus on child safety, while experts and advocacy groups caution that excluding children could isolate vulnerable young people or send them toward less regulated services.

Indonesia is considering raising the minimum age for social media use to 18. Malaysia now requires platforms to obtain operating licenses, adding another form of regulatory oversight. These approaches place different obligations on companies: checking users, restricting access or securing permission to operate.

Europe combines consent, safety rules and digital identity

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, known as the GDPR, requires parental consent for processing children's data under 16, or below a lower threshold set by an individual country. Processing data means collecting, storing or otherwise using personal information. This places consent rules at the heart of children's access to digital services.

The Digital Services Act and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive also mandate age assurance and content moderation to protect minors. Age assurance is the broader task of establishing a user's age with enough confidence for a service to apply its rules. It can involve verification or an estimate.

France has approved a law requiring platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for those under 15. Norway is proposing to raise the minimum age for social media use to 15, using its national digital identity system, BankID, for verification.

Spain and Greece are advocating for an EU wide age block, with mandatory age verification at the device level and parental controls. Checking age through a device would shift part of the process away from individual social media services.

The EU is also piloting the European Digital Identity Wallet, or EUDI. The application would allow citizens to store digital credentials securely and disclose selected information, including age. Selective disclosure means sharing the detail a service needs rather than every detail held in a credential.

Some regard the wallet as a "gold standard" for verification that protects privacy. Others warn that a digital identity system could weaken anonymity and increase surveillance. The debate turns on how much information is shared, who can access it and whether users can participate without exposing their identity.

The United States builds a patchwork of rules

The United States has no unified federal law setting minimum ages for social media. Its existing Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, known as COPPA, requires parental consent for users under 13, but enforcement is inconsistent.

The proposed Protecting Kids on Social Media Act would establish a minimum age of 13 and require platforms to verify ages more robustly. That proposal sits alongside a growing collection of state initiatives, creating different potential obligations depending on where a user lives.

Utah and Texas have passed some of the strictest measures. Texas is seeking to ban all users under 18 from social media and require app stores to verify ages. California, Florida, New York and Louisiana have enacted or are considering similar laws.

Civil liberties groups and technology companies are challenging these efforts in court. They argue that mandatory verification threatens privacy and free speech. For platforms serving users across state boundaries, the developing patchwork also creates a practical problem: the same service may face different access and verification rules in different places.

South Korea's experience and Nepal's debate

South Korea has a long history of government identity verification, including its now repealed Internet Real Name System. That system forms part of the country's experience with connecting online participation to identity.

Today, services including Netflix and Naver require annual age verification using phone numbers, credit cards or government IDs. These measures are widely accepted within South Korea's collectivist culture, which places weight on shared responsibilities and group interests. They have also drawn criticism for restricting freedom of speech and increasing exposure to data breaches.

Nepal is debating a bill that would end online anonymity and require all social media users to verify their identities. The proposal has prompted concerns about free expression and government overreach.

Vietnam and Nepal illustrate how the debate can extend beyond children's access. When verification applies to all users, adults who rely on anonymity also face changes to how they communicate, publish information and seek support.

How platforms can check someone's age

Governments and companies are considering several methods, each with practical strengths and weaknesses. A system must be reliable enough to apply an age rule while remaining accessible to the people entitled to use the service.

• Self attestation asks users to declare their age. It is easy to get around and is not considered a robust check.
• Government ID checks ask for a photo or scan of an official document. They are more reliable but raise concerns about privacy and data security.
• Credit card verification uses a card to help confirm age. Many users, especially minors, do not have access to one.
• Biometric age estimation uses artificial intelligence to estimate age from a selfie or video. Avoiding storage of the image can protect privacy, but accuracy and bias remain concerns.
• Behavioral analysis uses artificial intelligence to infer age from language, interactions and other activity. It can be less intrusive but is vulnerable to errors.
• National digital identity systems use credentials supported by government. Norway and South Korea use such systems, which offer strong security while raising concerns about surveillance and exclusion.

Biometric estimation differs from checking a birth date on a document. It makes a prediction from physical features. Behavioral analysis also makes an inference, using what a person does online rather than a confirmed record of their age.

Meta, whose platforms include Facebook and Instagram, and Discord are piloting services from outside providers that use facial scans and document uploads. Yubo has made age assurance a central part of its user experience and reports increased trust and safety among users.

Reddit has explored iris scanning as another possible approach. New techniques expand the options available to platforms, while bringing their own questions about sensitive information, accuracy and how users can complete a check.

Privacy and access are part of the safety test

Government IDs, credit cards and smartphones are not available to everyone. Strict verification can exclude marginalized groups, undocumented individuals and people living in rural areas or on low incomes. An adult entitled to use a platform may still struggle to provide the evidence it demands.

Personal documents and biometric information also create risks if they are stolen, exposed or misused. Collecting more sensitive data can increase the consequences of a breach, including identity theft. Civil liberties groups argue for data minimization and purpose limitation.

Data minimization means collecting only what is needed. Purpose limitation means using that information only for the reason it was collected. Applied to age checks, these principles call for a service to request no more information than it needs to decide whether a user meets its age requirement.

Whistleblowers, survivors and marginalized communities may depend on anonymity to speak candidly or obtain support. Connecting online activity to a person's identity can discourage that participation, especially when users fear their statements could be traced back to them.

Users determined to evade restrictions may use virtual private networks, known as VPNs, fake IDs or alternative platforms. A VPN routes an internet connection through another location. Critics warn that blunt bans may move young people into less regulated online spaces instead of keeping them safe.

Sonia Livingstone, a UK scholar of digital literacy, has warned about protection becoming a barrier to participation. She described the risk as:

Protection that turns into exclusion

Livingstone's warning puts young people's ability to participate meaningfully in digital spaces alongside the need to protect them. A verification system affects both those who are blocked and those who must surrender information to gain access.

Platforms adapt while challenging mandates

Meta and TikTok have introduced stricter content moderation, default privacy settings for minors and screen time limits. Discord and Yubo are among the services piloting more advanced age assurance technology. These changes show that access checks are developing alongside protections within platforms.

Technology companies also argue that some mandates are unworkable or invasive. Verification through app stores, as proposed in Texas, could centralize sensitive data. Apple, Google and other companies have lobbied against such laws, warning about consequences for users and the wider digital ecosystem.

Australia's exemption for YouTube has created another dispute. The exemption rests on the platform's educational value. Competitors including TikTok argue that short videos are similar across services, challenging the basis for treating them differently.

Exemptions matter because they determine which services children can continue to use and which companies must implement restrictions. Platforms are therefore contesting both the verification technology and the boundaries of the rules themselves.

Different countries, different enforcement demands

During 2025, governments on four continents are moving toward stronger age assurance laws, heavier fines and stricter enforcement. The UK is preparing to require "watertight" age verification for adult content, with potential prison sentences for company leaders who fail to comply. The EU is piloting digital wallets, while the US Congress is debating federal standards.

Germany focuses on making platforms safer for minors rather than imposing outright bans. Vietnam and Nepal are moving toward comprehensive identity verification, prompting concerns about surveillance and human rights. These differences reflect a global debate over whether to restrict entry, change the experience inside a service or require users to identify themselves.

The developments span enacted rules, implementation periods and proposals still under discussion:

• 2022: Pew Research Center found that 67% of teens used TikTok and 32% used Facebook.
• December 2024: Vietnam's Decree 147 took effect, requiring account verification through a national ID or local phone number.
• 2025: Governments across four continents are pursuing stronger age assurance, while digital wallet pilots and federal proposals continue.
• Within 12 months of passage: Australia's legislation requires platforms to implement robust age checks.

Several proposals have no stated implementation date, including Indonesia's possible increase to 18, Norway's proposed threshold of 15 and Nepal's identity requirement. Their timing depends on decisions still being made.

No universal standard governs these checks. Companies must navigate local laws, different technical requirements and legal challenges, often at substantial cost. A method accepted in one jurisdiction may leave a platform facing different obligations elsewhere.

Safety also depends on what happens inside platforms

Experts and advocacy groups argue that controlling access addresses only part of online harm. Platform design, reporting tools and responses to abuse also shape users' experiences after they enter a service.

Social media algorithms can increase the visibility of emotional extremes and encourage addictive behavior. An algorithm is a set of instructions that helps decide which posts a person sees. Changing those design choices is part of the effort to protect users' well being.

Accessible reporting tools and responsive moderation are also necessary for preventing and reducing harm. A person facing abuse needs a way to report it, and a platform needs to respond effectively. Clear standards, transparency and oversight allow companies to be held accountable for action or inaction when harm occurs.

An industry leader described that broader responsibility in these words:

A safer internet is not just one with fewer bad actors. It's one where harm is taken seriously, where victims are supported, and where platforms are held accountable.

Age and identity checks place new responsibilities on platforms, but the debate also concerns what companies do with their recommendation systems, how they handle complaints and how they support people who experience abuse. The balance between safety, privacy and meaningful participation depends on those decisions as well as access rules.

The Bottom Line

• Governments are expanding social media regulation from content moderation to age checks, identity verification and restrictions on access.
• Vietnam's Decree 147 took effect in December 2024. Australia's legislation targets users under 16 and carries potential company fines of up to AU$50 million.
• Europe is combining consent rules, safety requirements and digital identity pilots. The United States is developing state measures alongside federal proposals.
• Verification methods include documents, credit cards, facial estimation, behavioral analysis and national digital identity systems.
• Privacy, exclusion, free speech and movement toward less regulated services remain central concerns.
• Platforms are adapting their services while challenging mandates and exemptions. No universal verification standard exists.
• Safer platform design, effective moderation, support for victims and company accountability remain part of the response to online harm.