The Albanese Government will overturn its decision to exempt YouTube from Australia’s upcoming under-16s social media ban, following firm advice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant that the platform is a major source of online harm for young people and its carve-out “appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the act.”
The backflip, expected to be formalised in the coming months, marks a major shift in the rollout of the Social Media legislation, a world-first law set to take effect by December 2025. Passed with bipartisan support, the law will ban children under 16 from accessing platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat. Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of up to $50 million.
Originally excluded from the law under the former Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland, YouTube had been granted an exemption on the basis that it was primarily a video-hosting platform used for educational purposes. However, this position came under increasing scrutiny after eSafety’s own research revealed that YouTube may be the most harmful of all.
According to a survey conducted by the eSafety Office, 76 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 use YouTube, more than any other platform, and 37% of those who had encountered harmful content said their most recent or impactful exposure occurred on YouTube. Harmful content included misogynistic or hateful material, violent fight videos, dangerous online challenges and content promoting disordered eating. One in seven children also reported grooming-like behaviour from adults or significantly older peers.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Inman Grant warned of a growing risk environment and inconsistent moderation efforts across platforms. “This really underscores the challenge of evaluating a platform’s relative safety at a single point in time, particularly as we see platform after platform winding back their trust and safety teams and weakening policies designed to minimise harm, making these platforms ever more perilous for our children,” she said.
Inman Grant also referenced recent reporting from The New York Times, which claimed YouTube had quietly scaled back moderation efforts, allowing more violative content to remain on the platform, even when it breached the company’s own rules.
The Commissioner dismissed arguments that YouTube functions differently from social media apps, stating that its use of infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmically curated feeds, and community interactions makes it functionally similar to TikTok and Instagram.
She described the current policy settings as being in urgent need of revision: “Given the known risks of harms on YouTube, the similarity of its functionality to other online services, and without sufficient evidence demonstrating that YouTube predominantly provides beneficial experiences for children under 16, providing a specific carve-out appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the Act”.
New research from Precise TV’s PARK study underlines the central role YouTube plays in the digital lives of Australian children. The platform is the most-watched service among children aged 2 to 12, with 86 per cent of 10–to 12-year-olds using YouTube and an average daily viewing time of 74 minutes.
Even among younger age groups, usage remains high, with 73 per cent of 2–5-year-olds and 6–9-year-olds regularly tuning in. Kids reported watching a mix of cartoons, educational content, gaming videos, and music, often viewing alone or with a parent. The platform also topped the list for ad recall and purchasing influence, with 37 per cent of parents saying their last child-related purchase was driven by a YouTube ad, reinforcing why policymakers are increasingly focused on its role in shaping young minds.
In a statement, Rachel Lord Public Policy and Government Relations Senior Manager, YouTube Australia and New Zealand said: “The eSafety Commissioner’s advice for younger people to use YouTube in a “logged out” state deprives them of the age-appropriate experiences and additional safety guardrails we specifically designed for younger people”.
“YouTube is not a social media platform; it is a video streaming platform with a library of free, high-quality content. eSafety’s advice to include YouTube in the social media ban is in direct contradiction to the Government’s own commitment, its own research on community sentiment, independent research, and the view of Australian parents, teachers and other key stakeholders in this debate,” Lord said.
Despite YouTube’s assertion that it provides age-appropriate products, such as YouTube Kids and supervised teen experiences, the platform is now likely to be included in the ban. Government sources confirmed that Communications Minister Anika Wells is expected to announce the change later this year after reviewing Inman Grant’s formal advice.
Her office released a statement saying that Minister Wells is carefully considering Inman Grant’s advice. “Her top priority is making sure the draft rules fulfil the objective of the Act – protecting children from the harms of social media,” a spokesperson for Wells said.
Adding to the challenge, the legislation’s implementation is under tight time pressure. Inman Grant acknowledged the complexity of what lies ahead, saying, “We may be building the plane a little bit as we’re flying it.” Her office is responsible for developing final regulatory guidelines and determining which platforms are covered under the law.
Age assurance technologies, such as AI-based age estimation tools, are expected to play a key role in enforcement. A recent government-funded trial concluded that age gating can be implemented in a way that is “private, robust and effective,” but also noted that “there is no single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases.”
Meanwhile, concerns remain from civil society and industry stakeholders about unintended consequences. Critics argue that the ban could isolate young people from legitimate educational and mental health resources, pushing them toward less regulated digital spaces. While some mental health experts have supported the age restriction, others have urged caution, warning that blanket bans could do more harm than good if not carefully implemented.
Despite operational uncertainty, the Albanese Government has maintained that the legislation is a necessary response to growing evidence of online harm. The Age Assurance Consumer Research Report, released earlier this month, showed nearly 9 in 10 Australians support age verification measures to protect children on social media.
Still, the task ahead is significant. With under six months until rollout, Inman Grant and her team are finalising rules for a ban that will regulate some of the world’s most powerful tech companies, and shape the future of how Australian children engage with the internet.
