Australia Social Media Ban for Under-16s Falters on Age Verification
- tech360.tv
- 9 hours ago
- 3 min read
Australia's social media ban for users under 16 years old is faltering. A recent study, involving a team that advised the government, indicates platforms are failing at the initial age verification stage, rendering the world-first restriction largely ineffective.
Since late last year, Australian law has mandated that platforms, including Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, must bar individuals under 16 from holding accounts. Operators must take "reasonable steps" to comply, with the government recommending multiple age verification checks. The ban has drawn criticism. Earlier in the year, studies suggested most under-16s still accessed these platforms. Australia recently doubled the maximum financial penalty for non-compliance and warned Big Tech companies of legal action.
A KJR software testing team, which trialled age-assurance software on over 1,000 Australians, found a significant flaw. But platforms did not ask for age proof on any of 50 test accounts opened after the law commenced, despite these accounts stating an age of 16 years. Researchers communicated these findings to Reuters. This unaddressed issue reveals an overlooked vulnerability in the system.
The flaw lies in the initial vetting stage, which estimates a user's age based on general online activity. This stage fails to flag younger users for further verification. Andrew Hammond, a director at KJR, stated his team was never asked to verify age or use age-assurance measures.
All 50 test accounts remain active across nine of the ten platforms. And these include Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, TikTok, and Alphabet's YouTube, Mr Hammond confirmed. Some dummy accounts received advertisements for youth banking products. One account on X, claiming to be 16, was served pornographic content.
No platform allowed users to sign up if they declared themselves under 16. Only Kick, an Australia-based live-streaming platform, refused account creation without proof of age, the follow-up study found. Snap and TikTok declined to comment. Google and X did not respond to inquiries.
A Meta spokesperson stated Mr Hammond's trial appeared inconsistent with regulator guidance. This guidance advises escalating to formal age verification when behavioural indicators suggest underage status or an account is reported. So the spokesperson added dummy accounts declared they were over the minimum age, and it was unclear if they engaged as a true under-16-year-old would.
A Kick spokesperson said relying on age inference was not feasible for their new platform, lacking sufficient user data. An eSafety commissioner representative expressed confidence that age-restricted platforms possess technology and resources to prevent Australian children under 16 from having accounts.
The eSafety commissioner's spokesperson added the recommended approach involves robust, increasing checks, which, "if implemented correctly, ensures there is no single point of failure." And despite an earlier claim that the ban had removed approximately 4.7 million suspected underage accounts in a month, reports of non-compliance have been consistent.
Platforms contend they follow regulator guidance, prioritising low-friction vetting. Reliance solely on government identification is prohibited due to privacy. Advisers to Mr Hammond's original trial warned the process was compromised by a lack of testing for real-life circumvention, including false birthdate entries.
Colm Gannon, Australia CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, an adviser, noted previous reluctance to discuss circumvention. But he observed that circumvention has since become common among young people. Amanda Third, a youth digital rights academic and trial adviser, now part of a two-year regulator study, noted platforms were expected to target self-declared underage accounts first.
Ms Third indicated a transition to age inference methods was anticipated by mid-year. She suggested subsequent data collection might show more impressive statistics from the ongoing study.
Australian law mandates social media platforms to restrict users under 16 years old.
A KJR study found no age verification requests for 50 test accounts that declared age 16.
The initial age vetting stage, based on online activity, appears insufficient in identifying young users for further checks.
Regulators and platforms hold differing views on the adequacy and implementation of existing age verification protocols.
Advisers to the original trial observed that circumvention tactics, such as entering false birthdates, are frequently employed by young users.
Source: Reuters
