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.
𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗟𝗮𝘄
𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 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.
𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: 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.
𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲: 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.
𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 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.
𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁’𝘀 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲
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.
𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺𝘀
Despite widespread support, several hurdles remain:
𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀: Critics point out that verifying ages accurately on the internet can be tricky, raising concerns that determined minors could still bypass restrictions.
𝗣𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗨𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀: 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.
𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱
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:
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.