One year after the introduction of the ban on social networks for children under 16 in Australia, the regulation must face scrutiny before the country's High Court. The constitutional challenge will be heard starting November 3. It is backed by the Digital Freedom Project and supported by the network Reddit. At its core, the plaintiffs argue that the ban unduly restricts the freedom of political communication of young people under 16.
The ban affects, among others, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat and TikTok. After just over a year, however, it is clear that it is largely failing to achieve its purpose. A study by the University of Newcastle led by Barnes found that 85 percent of under-16s continue to use the blocked platforms. The Age Verification Providers Association arrives at a similar figure, speaking of up to 80 percent of children who have kept their accounts. Many young people circumvent age checks by providing false age information or by using facial scans of older people. The gap between the legal claim and actual usage is therefore considerable, and it forms the backdrop against which the lawsuit is now being heard.
The lawsuit itself has also lost weight. The young plaintiff Noah Jones withdrew his participation because he feared the risk of possible court costs. As a result, the organization Digital Freedom Project remains as the main party bringing the challenge, while the government has its lawyers argue against it in the proceedings. The case therefore concerns not only the question of individual user rights but fundamentally the reach of state intervention in young people's access to digital spaces for discussion.
The government tightened the sanctions in June: the maximum fine was raised to 99 million Australian dollars. The new authority, the eSafety Commissioner, was also given the power to require companies to hand over information. So far, just under six months after the tightening, not a single penalty has been imposed. Observers consider this discrepancy between threatened severity and the absence of enforcement to be one of the weak points of the implementation to date.
Australia is not alone with its approach. The United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and several EU member states are also planning similar rules. The British media regulator Ofcom is due to require stricter age checks from platforms from the spring. Whether the experience in Canberra serves as a model or as a warning will likely depend on how the High Court rules and whether the authorities actually apply sanctions in the future.
Critics consider age limits to be the wrong instrument. They advocate placing greater responsibility on the platforms themselves, rather than imposing blanket bans on users. Some experts also warn that young people could switch to less secure services such as Reddit. Instead, they call for approaches based on a duty of care by providers and concepts of online safety that place the protection of young users at the center.