Australia Doubles Fines on Tech Giants as Under-16 Social Media Ban Shows Persistent Cracks

Australia has moved swiftly to stiffen its landmark prohibition on social media for anyone under 16. The government announced Saturday it will double the maximum civil penalty for systemic breaches from 49.5 million Australian dollars to 99 million Australian dollars, equivalent to more than 68 million U.S. dollars. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not mince words. “It’s clear big tech are not doing enough to comply with the law,” he said. “These changes reflect the seriousness with which we take any failure by social media companies to comply with our world-leading law.”

The update grants the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, fresh authority. She can now compel platforms to hand over concrete evidence of measures taken to block underage accounts. Investigators may also pull records from third parties. Age verification services. App stores. The goal is clear. Stop relying on self-reported compliance from the companies themselves. Engadget first reported the penalty increase and new powers.

Yet the numbers tell a stubborn story. The ban took effect December 10, 2025. Officials claim more than five million accounts held by those under 16 have since been removed, deactivated or restricted. Impressive on paper. Real-world behavior paints another picture.

Research keeps surfacing gaps. A University of Newcastle study found more than 85 percent of Australian teens under 16 remain active on the apps. The Molly Rose Foundation polled over 1,000 children aged 12 to 15 in April. Sixty-one percent still had access. A separate analysis published in the British Medical Journal examined 408 adolescents. It concluded there was “insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the act had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16.” Two-thirds of the underage users in that sample simply declared themselves over 16 or uploaded a selfie the system accepted.

Communications Minister Anika Wells pulled no punches. “Based on the regular updates I receive from the eSafety Commissioner, it is clear to me that social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by,” she stated, according to Reuters coverage of the announcement. Wells added that the tougher penalties and powers demonstrate the government “will not back down.”

The platforms under active scrutiny include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. None immediately responded to requests for comment in the hours after the news broke. The eSafety Commissioner’s own site stresses the law demands “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating or keeping accounts. No fines fall on the children or their parents. Responsibility sits squarely with the companies. The official eSafety page outlines these obligations in detail.

Parents on the street voiced skepticism. One Sydney resident told Reuters she doubted higher fines would change much “when they make so much money as well off of people being on their websites.” Another said the platforms “haven’t really done as much as they said they were going to.” She described watching family members continue to use the services while pretending the activity was not against the rules.

Critics point to easy workarounds. Fake age declarations. Selfies that fool basic checks. Virtual private networks. Fifteen percent of 12- to 13-year-olds and 19 percent of 14- to 15-year-olds in one survey admitted to fake accounts. About three percent reported using a VPN. The government itself acknowledges many children are never even prompted to verify age.

And. The world watches. Britain signaled plans for even broader restrictions that would touch gaming and live-streaming services too. France, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, New Zealand and others have signaled interest in similar age floors. Australia positioned itself as the test case. Now it must prove the policy can be enforced at scale.

The proposed legislation aligns the maximum penalty with those available under competition and consumer law. It expands the regulator’s toolkit beyond platform statements to independent verification. Timing for introduction to parliament remains undecided. Officials promised more details soon.

Reddit, for its part, has challenged the entire ban in Australia’s highest court on free-speech grounds. The government says it will defend the law vigorously. That legal fight adds another layer of complexity as enforcement ramps up.

Supporters argue any reduction in exposure matters. Harms linked to social media, from mental health strain to predatory contact, fueled the original push. The five-million-account figure shows platforms did act in some fashion after December. Yet the persistence of high usage rates suggests the age-assurance technology deployed so far falls short of the law’s intent.

Industry voices earlier this year pushed back. Some suppliers claimed the fault lay less with the available tools and more with half-hearted implementation by the platforms. The government clearly sides with that view now. Bare minimum compliance will no longer suffice. The fines just got twice as painful.

Whether doubled penalties force genuine behavioral change remains an open question. Tech companies operate globally. Their engineering teams can tweak sign-up flows in weeks. Regulators, however, must build cases that hold up in court. Gathering evidence from third parties could prove decisive. Or it could spark fresh battles over data access and privacy.

For now the message from Canberra is unmistakable. The ban stays. The pressure intensifies. Big Tech has been put on notice once more. Parents, teens and policymakers everywhere will track the results.