Australia is preparing a legal case against five of the world's largest social media companies, accusing Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube of failing to keep children under 16 off their platforms. Communications Minister Anika Wells confirmed the plan in an interview with Bloomberg published on October 20, saying the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is now building a case for the Federal Court using newly expanded investigative powers.
A law tested by its own enforcement
The under-16 ban took effect on December 10, 2025, under the Online Safety Act. Section 63D requires platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent age-restricted users from holding accounts - language that leaves considerable room for interpretation, as the regulator itself has acknowledged. Penalties for non-compliance started at A$49.5 million and were doubled six months after the ban began, reaching A$109.2 million, roughly $76 million, once it became apparent that enforcement was lagging.
Since September 12, 2026, Inman Grant has held significantly sharper tools: the authority to demand documents from anyone she believes holds relevant information, and to summon individuals - including current or former employees of the platforms - to testify under oath. Refusing to answer can carry a twelve-month prison sentence. These powers are what Wells says will let the Commissioner "gather the evidence that she needs to take those five companies to the Federal Court."
Compliance efforts versus persistent gaps
The platforms have not been idle. By June, the government reported that more than 5 million accounts belonging to under-16s had been removed, deactivated or restricted, with Meta alone citing the removal of access to over 750,000 accounts on Facebook and Instagram. Meta has also described an ongoing process using artificial intelligence to scan posts, comments, bios and captions for contextual signs of underage users, such as references to birthdays or school grades.
Yet independent research suggests these measures have not closed the gap. A University of Chicago working paper found that roughly 73% of 14- and 15-year-olds covered by the ban were still using the restricted platforms, and a study in the British Medical Journal described "limited implementation, incomplete compliance, and substantial circumvention" of the restrictions. A government survey of parents found that around seven in ten said their child still held an account on one of the major platforms.
Where the line between evidence and politics sits
When the investigation began in March, eSafety stressed that merely showing children still use a platform would not be enough to justify enforcement action - it needed proof that companies' efforts fell short of what courts would consider "reasonable." That distinction matters: the law never defined a fixed technical standard, leaving judges to decide, case by case, what counts as adequate verification.
The Online Safety Act is already facing a separate legal challenge. Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project have taken the law to the High Court, arguing it forces "intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors." That case is due to be heard in November, raising the possibility that Australia's age-verification regime could be reshaped from two directions at once - one lawsuit pushing platforms toward stricter checks, another challenging the legality of the checks themselves.
A policy tension not yet resolved
The platforms argue, implicitly through their compliance reports, that they are deploying the tools available - AI classification, account audits, mass removals - without resorting to mandatory government identification, which the law itself restricts unless "reasonable" alternatives exist. Enforcing the ban more completely would likely mean subjecting every Australian user, not just suspected minors, to more rigorous identity checks. That trade-off between youth protection and the privacy of adult users remains unresolved, and it is one the courts, rather than regulators or company policy teams, now appear set to settle.