Australia’s Communications Minister, Anika Wells, will meet with senior executives from Meta, Snapchat, YouTube and TikTok this week as the government races to finalise how its under-16 social media ban will be enforced before it takes effect on December 10.
The meetings, also attended by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, are expected to be tense, with tech giants still pushing back against what will be one of the world’s strictest digital age laws, imposing fines of up to $49.5 million on companies that fail to stop under-16s from holding accounts. A separate meeting with Elon Musk’s X is reportedly set for November.
Wells said the purpose of the talks is to resolve implementation issues before December 10. “There’s a place for social media, but there’s not a place for predatory algorithms damaging children,” Wells said.
“In two months, our world-leading social media minimum age laws will give children a reprieve from the persuasive pull of platforms, and those platforms must work closely with eSafety to ensure their systems comply with the law.”
A major government advertising campaign will roll out this week to prepare parents and teenagers for the change.
Google Guns For Bill In Committee Address
Google gave a fiery statement to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee this morning about the ban and whether it should be swept up in the landmark legislation changes.
“The Government’s plan to ban social media use for under 16s may be well-intentioned but in practice risks unintended consequences,” said Rachel Lord, Google and YouTube’s public policy senior manager, speaking to virtually to the committee.
“The legislation will not only be extremely difficult to enforce, it also does not fulfill its promise of making kids safer online.
“YouTube has invested heavily in designing age appropriate products and industry-leading content controls and tools that allow parents to make choices for their families. Forcing kids to use YouTube without an account removes the very parental controls and safety filters built to protect them.
“Across sport, music, creative learning and classrooms, YouTube is used by millions of Australian children to develop skills that support their education, growth and wellbeing. The proposed approach risks inadvertently impacting safer access to these valuable services and information important for kids’ learning and development.
“This law fundamentally misunderstands what YouTube is: it’s a video streaming platform that Australians use as a content library and learning resource – it’s not social media.
“Well crafted legislation can be an effective tool to build on industry efforts to keep children and teens safer online.
“But the solution to keeping kids safer online is not stopping them from being online, it’s about making sure platforms have relevant guardrails in place and empowering parents with the tools and confidence they need to guide their children’s online experiences.”
Lord added that Google “supported” $53 billion in Australian economic activity last year and that YouTube’s “creative ecosystem contributed over $970 million” to Australia’s GDP and supported more than 16,000 full time jobs in 2024.
“We are supporting the nation’s digital transformation through our $1 billion Digital Future Initiative and through our secure digital infrastructure investments in Australia and across the Pacific,” she added.
Privacy Watchdog Sets Strict Limits On Data Collection
Coinciding with the ministerial meetings, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has released detailed privacy guidance for platforms and third-party age assurance providers outlining how they must comply with the privacy provisions of the Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) scheme.
The guidance makes clear that while companies will be required to verify users’ ages under the new law, they must do so in ways that are necessary, proportionate, and privacy-respecting. Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said the OAIC’s goal is to “guard and uplift the privacy protections of all Australians by ensuring that the age assurance methods used by age-restricted social media platforms and age assurance providers are lawful.”
The guidance sets out stringent requirements for how personal and sensitive information, such as biometric data, identity documents, and age-verification tokens, can be collected, used and destroyed.
Platforms are expected to minimise the information they gather, rely on low-intrusion techniques wherever possible, and destroy personal data once verification purposes are met. Any reuse of data must be strictly optional, based on unambiguous consent and capable of being easily withdrawn.
The OAIC also warned that platforms must be transparent with users about what information is collected and how it is handled, with “just-in-time” privacy notices provided at key decision points.
Kind said the OAIC would be “actively monitoring platforms to ensure they stay within the bounds by deploying age assurance proportionately and lawfully,” stressing that the new regime is “not a blank cheque to use personal or sensitive information in all circumstances”.
Growing Concern From Young People
While the government’s move has strong parental backing, the rollout has drawn sharp criticism from youth and LGBTQIA+ advocates, who warn the law could cut off vulnerable teens from critical support networks.
Sixteen-year-old Abbie Jane from Broken Hill told the ABC social media “saved my life” after years of homophobic bullying at school. Through platforms like Instagram, she launched the Rainbow Shoelace Project, connecting with others across Australia.
“My safe place was going online; it made me feel for the first time so proud of who I was,” she said. “Without social media, I wouldn’t have been able to create that thing that basically saved my life.”
Fifteen-year-old Kelsey Van der Woude from South Australia’s Riverland region echoed the sentiment, saying the ban would “cut off” queer youth from the community.
“When you’re living in a regional area, there’s less chance for there to be people around you … which means there’s less people who are more likely to be more like you,” Kelsey said. “Kids are mean, teenagers are mean,” Kelsey said.
“I was agender and being lesbian … I never really had the words for it until social media,” she said. “LGBT+ people will be cut off.”
“I will definitely be a little more screwed when the social media ban happens, bullying-wise, because I’m autistic and queer. So, I’m a bit of a target,” she said.
Advocacy groups such as the SA Rainbow Advocacy Alliance and Minus18 have called on the government to invest in offline, safe spaces for regional LGBTQIA+ youth if the ban proceeds.
Despite the looming deadline, some teenagers are sharing tactics online to sidestep the ban, including claiming parental management of accounts or moving to lesser-known apps like Lemon8.
As Wells prepares to face down global tech leaders and privacy regulators tighten the guardrails, Australia’s under-16 social media ban stands at the crossroads of protection and connection.
The government argues the move will shield young Australians from predatory algorithms and online harm, while privacy experts demand careful, proportionate enforcement. But for many teens and researchers, the ban risks severing the very lifelines that have kept some young people safe, seen and supported.
The coming months will reveal whether Australia can strike a balance between safety and freedom, or whether, in trying to protect its children, it inadvertently leaves the most vulnerable ones more isolated than ever.
