Australia Social Media Fines Corner Meta on Child Accounts

Australia social media fines are being turned into a direct test of whether Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms can prove children are not holding accounts, not just promise they are trying. Canberra plans to double the maximum penalty for platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to keep Australian children off restricted services, according to ABC International.

Australia is making child accounts a $99 million compliance problem for Meta

The proposed change would lift the maximum fine to 99 million Australian dollars ($68 million) for platforms that fail to prevent Australian children from holding accounts. That is the sharp end of a law that came into force on Dec. 10, after Parliament passed the initial legislation with overwhelming support in 2024.

The government’s argument is blunt: the law has not delivered enough, and platforms had more than 12 months to prepare.

Communications Minister Anika Wells blamed platform resistance for the escalation.

“We can all agree we would like the scheme to work better than it is currently, but that is on Big Tech taking the Mickey,” Wells told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

The primary shift is not only financial. It is evidentiary. The government wants eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to have stronger powers to demand documents and information from platforms, and from third parties such as age assurance and app-store providers. That turns the fight from “Are platforms trying?” into “Can they prove what they did?”

For context on the earlier penalty framework, see XOOMAR’s coverage of Australia Social Media Ban Slams Big Tech With $68M Fines. The pressure on proof was also central in Australia Social Media Ban Dares Meta to Prove Teens Are Out.

The numbers show why enforcement, not headlines, will decide the law’s force

The government says more than 5 million under-16 accounts have been removed, deactivated, or restricted since the ban began. That sounds large. The counterpoint is sharper: eSafety reported in March that seven in 10 children who held accounts on restricted platforms on Dec. 10 remained on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok.

That gap explains the Australia social media fines escalation.

The government says the penalty increase would bring the regime in line with penalties available under competition and consumer law. That comparison matters because Canberra is trying to move the ban out of the realm of online safety messaging and into the same enforcement posture used for major corporate misconduct.

XOOMAR analysis: the fine alone does not guarantee compliance. The more important change may be the proposed information-gathering power. If eSafety can demand evidence from platforms and third-party age assurance providers, platforms lose the ability to rely on broad safety claims without showing the underlying controls.

Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube are now the visible enforcement targets

The government statement says eSafety is actively investigating potential non-compliance involving Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. In April, Inman Grant said she was considering court action against those platforms and YouTube, alleging they were not taking reasonable steps to exclude children.

The regulator’s treatment of other platforms is telling. Inman Grant had been satisfied with progress by X, Kick, Reddit, Threads, and Twitch. That does not mean those platforms are permanently clear. It does show eSafety is distinguishing between platforms rather than treating the entire sector as one block.

The hard technical problem sits in the middle. Research cited by The Guardian found more than 80% of under-16s were still using social media three months after the law took effect. In a study of more than 400 12- to 17-year-olds by the University of Newcastle, two-thirds reported being asked to complete age-verification checks, but only 5% of 12- to 13-year-olds and 11% of 14- to 15-year-olds had to provide a photo of official ID. The same report said 15% of 12- to 13-year-olds and 19% of 14- to 15-year-olds used a fake account, while about 3% used a VPN.

That is the enforcement trap. Weak checks are easy to bypass. Stronger checks raise privacy and data collection concerns. Australia is now forcing platforms to defend where they draw that line.

Parents, teenagers, platforms, and regulators want different things from the same law

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese framed the reform as a child safety measure with international significance.

“I’m heartened by the shift in conversation and the global momentum we’ve seen since introducing the social media minimum age, but it’s clear big tech are not doing enough to comply with the law, there are still too many children on social media.”

Senior opposition lawmaker Jane Hume took a different route to a similar destination, saying her party would consider voting for the reforms because the “social media ban wasn’t working” under the existing framework.

“The legislation was clearly undercooked in the first place. The eSafety Commissioner wasn’t given the powers to be able to pursue these Big Tech companies,” Hume said.

XOOMAR analysis: this is why the politics are dangerous for platforms. The government and opposition are arguing over whether the first law was strong enough, not over whether children should be easier to keep on restricted platforms. That narrows the political room for tech companies to resist without appearing to defend non-compliance.

For families, the practical result may be more account restrictions, more verification prompts, and more disputes over mistaken removals. The sources do not establish how appeals will work, or what standards platforms must use when age signals conflict. That is a major unresolved issue.

Australia’s tougher fines are becoming a model others are watching

Australia’s ban is described in the source material as world-first, and other countries are watching closely. The Guardian reported that France’s national assembly passed legislation to prohibit social media account access for children under 15, with provisions for parental consent, while the UK government announced plans for an “Australia-plus” ban for under-16s from 2027. Similar proposals were being considered by Slovenia, Poland, Spain, Denmark, and Malaysia.

That makes Australia a live test case. If the country can show that higher penalties plus stronger evidence powers cut child accounts meaningfully, other governments have a template. If underage users keep bypassing checks at scale, the model looks politically attractive but technically brittle.

The next fight will be over proof. The government wants evidence of reasonable steps. Platforms will need to show what they checked, what they missed, and why children still got through.

Australia social media fines will matter only if regulators pair the larger penalty with clear technical expectations, independent evidence, and a workable path for correcting mistakes. The watch item now is whether eSafety’s stronger powers produce measurable improvement on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, or whether the next phase becomes a courtroom fight over what “reasonable steps” actually means.

Impact Analysis

• Australia is raising the financial risk for Meta and other platforms that fail to keep children off restricted services.
• The proposal shifts enforcement from promises of compliance to documented proof.
• Stronger powers for the eSafety Commissioner could reshape how platforms, app stores, and age-assurance providers handle child safety.