Beyond the Ban: Integrating Australia’s Social Media Age Restriction into Global Compliance Strategy

On 10 December 2025, Australia’s digital landscape changed permanently, marking a shift for global tech platforms operating in the country. After exactly a year of receiving Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 came fully into force. Under this new law, Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms (ARSMPs) must demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent access for users under 16. 

The law mandates age verification on these platforms to move beyond mere self-declaration and shift to robust, auditable age assurance measures. With penalties approaching AUD 50 million, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has irrevocably shifted the burden of responsibility from the user to regulatory compliance and the creation of verifiable audit trails by tech giants themselves. This policy is the start of a global domino effect, rather than an isolated one-country legislation. 

With Florida already having enforced under-14 bans and the Norwegian Government expressing interest in pushing for a 15-year limit, the global digital landscape is evolving. This Australian precedent demands a new global strategy, one that treats user safety not as a legal hurdle, but as a core operational value for social media platforms.

Deconstructing the 'Reasonable Steps': A New Operational Baseline 

The central challenge of the Online Safety Amendment lies in its non-prescriptive nature. By calling for reasonable steps to be taken rather than introducing a specific technical standard, the legislation places the burden of risk assessment solely on the platform operators, closing the gap on technical compliance that often ignores real-world safety outcomes. This has ensured that rather than a simple ‘tick-box’ exercise, compliance is a dynamic governance obligation. As evidenced by the eSafety Commissioner’s regulatory guidance and the outcomes of the Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT), the regulator’s expectations from platforms have shifted towards a model of ‘Successive Validation’. 

In order to meet the new threshold, findings from the trial suggest that platforms should implement a layered assurance methodology that increases friction as per the risk:

• Tier 1: Age Inference: Using IP geolocation, device history, and app usage patterns to recognise potential irregularities in a user’s declared age.
• Tier 2: Age estimation through AI: Using privacy-preserving facial estimation technology for users where Tier 1 data is inconclusive or a risk of underage access is evident.
• Tier 3: Age Verification: Reserving hard identifier checks, such as Government ID or Digital ID, for high-risk cases or instances where Tier 1 and 2 checks are inconclusive.

Implementing these tiers is only half of the new task. The eSafety Commissioner’s guidance explicitly extends these reasonable steps to the active detection of evasion. If a platform’s internal data, such as interest groups, vocabulary, or behavioural signals, suggests that a user is under 16, but the platform ignores this constructive knowledge because the user satisfied a Tier 1 check, the platform would be in non-compliance with the reasonable steps. A proper compliance posture requires not just age assurance, but circumvention monitoring, which means active detection and blocking of VPN usage, alternative account creation, and obvious misrepresentation.

The Privacy Paradox: Ringfence and Destroy

Other than its obvious face value, the implementation of the new Online Safety Amendment presents another challenge for social media platforms. While a platform can now be fined by the eSafety Commissioner for not ensuring checks on minimum age for users, they can also be fined by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for being too intrusive with these checks. This means that for social media platforms covered by the new amendment, a child’s safety must not come at the expense of their privacy. 

For this purpose, Section 63F of the amendment mandates a strict data governance regime, often referred to in the industry as the ‘Ringfence and Destroy’ protocol.

• ‘Ringfencing’ or the obligation of purpose limitation means that platforms must technically segregate data that is collected for age assurance, away from the rest of their business. This means that signals used to verify a user’s age cannot be fed to the platform’s advertising algorithms, recommendation engines or any user profiling systems. Age assurance signals would thus be treated as single purpose assets.
• ‘Destroying’ or data minimisation means that once the purpose of these assets is served, they must be destroyed. This aspect allows for any collected data, such as ID scans or biometric face maps, to be permanently deleted immediately after the age check is performed.

This protocol pushes platforms to create a compliance airlock where verification must occur without the scope of sensitive data getting leaked into a larger data system. A failure here would not only be a privacy breach but also a direct violation of the Online Safety Act.

The Next Enforcement Wave: Managing Class 1C and Class 2 Obligations

While the 10 December minimum age ban captured headlines, its legal scope was limited to ARSMPs. An upcoming wave of regulation removes that filter. The eSafety Commissioner’s Phase 2 Industry Codes capture a much larger list of stakeholders. Unlike the age ban, these codes apply to almost every digital platform under the Online Safety Act’s definition of industry sections.  Any company operating in the following categories would be affected by the upcoming codes:

• Relevant Electronic Services (RES): Includes email, SMS, instant messaging, and online gaming chat functions.
• Designated Internet Services (DIS): A catch-all category for websites and apps that host user content or provide access to material such as forums, news sites with comments, and file-sharing sites.
• Search Engine Providers
• Hosting Services: Cloud providers and web hosts.

These codes regulate how platforms handle Class 1C content (high-impact violence, self-harm) and Class 2 adult content. The goal is not only to block accounts or bar under-16s, but to prevent any child from accidentally seeing harmful material. The codes roll out in two different tranches:

• Tranche 1: 27 December 2025
  • Who is affected? Search engines, hosting services, and internet carriage services.
  • What is expected? Providers must take reasonable steps to prevent children from encountering age-restricted content in search results or hosted pages. 
• Tranche 2:  9 March 2026
  • Who is affected? Social media services, app stores, and equipment providers.
  • What is expected? Stronger ‘Safety by Design’ duties. Platforms must ensure children, especially 16-17 year olds, aren’t exposed to algorithmic pushes of Class 1C content (e.g., eating-disorder material) and must fully block Class 2 content.

Future Outlook: The Global Domino Effect and Compliance Readiness

The global regulatory community has its eyes set on the implementation of these new restrictions in Australia. A successful implementation of these rules will not only transform the Australian digital landscape but also trigger a global domino effect of similar regulatory changes in other parts of the world. A part of this reaction has already begun with the United Kingdom implementing its own age assurance regime under the Online Safety Act, and the European Union introducing similar protections under the Digital Services Act.

Staying on top of these evolving age assurance laws is essential for government affairs and compliance teams. The digital landscape is ever evolving, especially as individual U.S. states and EU member nations begin to fragment the regulatory map. Understanding the operational implications of these changes is crucial for navigating technical, legal, and reputational obstacles before it is too late. 

With PolicyNote, teams can gain actionable intelligence on how to navigate complex policy environments and stay ahead of potential challenges through insights provided by our award-winning global policy analysis, delivered right to your inbox.