In a move widely regarded as a global first, Australia has enacted legislation prohibiting anyone under the age of 16 from using major social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. The law, passed by the Australian Parliament in November this year, aims to bolster online safety for minors and places significant accountability on technology companies to ensure compliance.
๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐
๐๐ด๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: Children under 16 are banned from opening or maintaining accounts on popular social platforms. Enforcement is scheduled to begin in late 2025, giving technology firms time to develop and implement age verification methods.
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ก๐ผ๐ป-๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ: Social media companies that fail to prevent underage users from creating accounts could be fined up to 50 million Australian dollars (approximately USD 32 million) per violation.
๐๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ง๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ: While the legislation has already passed, it will not be enforced for at least a year. This grace period allows for stakeholder consultations and the creation of robust compliance frameworks.
๐ฃ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐: Recent surveys indicate that around 77% of Australians support the ban, reflecting widespread concern over the impact of social media on youth mental health and safety.
๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐’๐ ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasized that the primary goal is to protect young Australians from online threats such as bullying, peer pressure, and exposure to inappropriate content. By shifting the burden onto tech companies rather than parents or minors, the government seeks a more systemic approach to safeguarding children’s well-being on digital platforms.
๐๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐บ๐
Despite widespread support, several hurdles remain:
๐๐ด๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐
๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐: Critics point out that verifying ages accurately on the internet can be tricky, raising concerns that determined minors could still bypass restrictions.
๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐จ๐ป๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐: Some worry that underage users, barred from mainstream platforms, may migrate to less-regulated or more obscure online forums, where risks could be even greater.
๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ
Australia’s decision is expected to spark global conversations about the responsibilities of tech companies, parents, and governments in managing youth engagement with social media. Whether the enforcement process proves successful or not, this legislation sets a notable precedent in the ongoing debate over internet regulation and child safety.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.