Key facts
- Australia's law banning under-16s from social media platforms is largely ineffective.
- A study found that platforms are failing at the initial age verification steps.
- Researchers opened 50 accounts declaring the age as 16 and were not asked for proof by most platforms.
- The initial vetting stage, which guesses age based on online activity, is not identifying young users for further checks.
- Only one platform, Kick, refused account creation without proof of age.
Australia's pioneering law mandating social media platforms to ban users under 16 is proving ineffective due to failures in the initial age verification stages, according to a study by a team that advised the government. The law requires platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent underage access.
A follow-up study by software testers found that none of the 50 accounts they opened, which declared the user as 16, were asked to verify their age. Researchers highlighted that the preliminary age-guessing stage, based on general online activity, is not effectively flagging young users for further scrutiny. This contrasts with the government's recommendation for multiple checks.
While platforms are prohibited from solely relying on government-issued identification due to privacy concerns, and none allow sign-ups if users declare themselves under 16, the study revealed a significant gap. Only the Australian platform Kick refused to create an account without proof of age. Meta stated that the dummy accounts declared they were over the minimum age and did not engage in behavior typical of underage users. Kick cited a lack of data for age inference as a reason for its approach.
The Australian eSafety commissioner remains confident in the platforms' ability to prevent underage access, stating that a layered approach with escalating checks, if implemented correctly, has no single point of failure. However, the rollout has faced criticism, with the government warning of potential lawsuits and doubling fines for non-compliance, accusing platforms of undermining the ban.