In a decisive move that signals a hardening of attitudes towards tech accountability, Australia has doubled the maximum penalty for social media companies that breach its new ban on under-16s using their platforms. The fine now stands at AUD 50 million (approximately £26 million), up from the original AUD 25 million, sending a clear message to Silicon Valley: comply or pay dearly.
This escalation comes as UK ministers confirm they are "closely watching" the Australian model, with a proposed Online Safety Bill amendment that would mirror the ban. The UK’s version could see fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover for platforms that fail to remove harmful content or enforce age restrictions. For a company like Meta, that could mean billions.
The Australian legislation, passed last week, requires platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from accessing services like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. Critics argue the ban is a blunt instrument that risks pushing teens to unregulated corners of the internet. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has framed it as necessary: "Social media is doing real harm to our kids. We’re putting the onus back on the platforms."
Doubling the penalty so quickly suggests a nervousness that companies might treat the original figure as a cost of doing business. For tech giants with quarterly revenues in the tens of billions, a £26 million fine is little more than a parking ticket. The new sum, though still modest relative to their market caps, marks a psychological shift: penalties are no longer symbolic.
London’s interest is palpable. The UK’s Online Safety Act is already on the statute books, but critics say its enforcement has been tentative. Ofcom, the regulator, has yet to issue a single fine since the act came into force. A UK government spokesperson said: "We are examining all options to protect children online. The Australian approach is one of several models under consideration."
But the devil is in the detail. Age verification technology remains a minefield. Australia’s ban relies on platforms using age estimation tools, but privacy advocates warn that mandatory ID checks could centralise sensitive data into corporate databases, creating a honey pot for hackers. The European Union’s GDPR adds another layer of complexity: any UK age verification system must respect data minimisation principles.
There is also the question of enforcement. How will Australia police which teens have accounts? And will a VPN or a parent’s phone be enough to bypass the ban? These are the same challenges that have plagued every attempt to legislate the internet since the 1996 Communications Decency Act in the US.
What is clear is the political momentum. In both Canberra and Westminster, the mood has shifted from laissez-faire to interventionist. The social contract between tech platforms and society is being rewritten. The question is whether fines alone can change a corporate culture built on engagement metrics and advertising revenue.
For now, the tech industry is lobbying hard, warning that strict age bans could fragment the internet and stifle innovation. But with parents and politicians united in concern, the window for self-regulation has all but closed. As one UK minister put it privately: "We’ve given them years to clean up their act. Now we’re taking over."
The coming months will test whether governments can actually enforce these laws without breaking the internet itself. If history is any guide, the platforms will find loopholes. But for the first time, the message from regulators is unambiguous: the era of impunity is over.
