Australia’s Under‑16 Social Media Ban

Australia has made international legal history by becoming the first country to ban children under 16 from holding social‑media accounts on major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and others. The new law took effect on 10 December 2025 and requires platforms to implement systems to prevent minors from opening or maintaining accounts — with fines reaching up to AUD 49.5 million for non‑compliance.

How the Australian Law Works

Unlike familiar content‑moderation laws, Australia’s rule is access‑based. Platforms must use “age assurance” systems — such as behavioural analysis, AI age estimation and, where appropriate, identity verification — to identify and deactivate under‑16 users and block new account creation. It does not criminalise children or parents; the legal obligation sits squarely with tech companies. Many teens have already pre‑emptively opened accounts or may attempt to circumvent restrictions (e.g., false ages, VPNs), and platforms like Meta have begun closing accounts in anticipation of the ban.

The BBC has reported that even if enforcement ticks every regulatory box, technology limitations will mean not all under‑16 accounts are identified, and in practice many minors may find workarounds.

Legal and Policy Considerations

The Australian decision is an ambitious attempt to protect youth from online harms — including mental health impacts, cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content — but it raises fundamental legal and practical tensions:

• Effectiveness vs. Rights: Blanket bans on digital access push regulators into uncharted territory, where digital rights and freedoms may conflict with public‑health objectives.
• Privacy Trade‑offs: Proposed enforcement mechanisms like biometric verification raise their own concerns about data protection and personal privacy.
• Implementation Realities: Even sophisticated age‑assurance systems are imperfect, and enforcement is highly dependent on technology that must guess age with margin for error.

Cyprus and the EU: A Rights‑Based, Proportionate Approach

The Cyprus legal framework — embedded in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights — takes a distinctly different approach.

Under EU law, digital content, platform regulation and online safety are governed by a combination of rights protections and risk‑management obligations. Cyprus applies these through its own laws and in transposition of key EU directives and regulations. For example:

• The Digital Services Act (DSA) obliges large platforms to manage systemic risks and adopt user protections, including for minors, but does not ban access based on age alone.
• The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) imposes content protection standards, particularly around advertising and harmful material.
• Neither Cyprus law nor EU law imposes broad restrictions on access to digital platforms by age as part of its general regulatory regime.

This reflects a deeply entrenched legal philosophy of proportionality and human‑rights balancing: online safety measures must be tailored, necessary and respectful of freedoms such as expression, information access and personal autonomy. Blanket age bans are generally viewed as disproportionate unless justified by exceptional circumstances.

Balancing Protection and Digital Freedoms

Where Australia’s approach is strict and categorical, EU policy favours graduated safeguards:

• Transparency and accountability requirements on platforms (including risk assessments and content moderation disclosures);
• Safety‑by‑design principles;
• Enhanced protections for children through content classification and parental‑control mechanisms;
• Data protection safeguards under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which strictly regulates collection of personal data, especially for minors.

This reflects a view that protecting children online should not come at the expense of fundamental digital liberties or personal data rights but should be worked into platform governance and safety frameworks in a way that balances interests.

Should Cyprus or the EU Consider Similar Measures?

The Australian model has ignited discussion in Europe about whether more robust child‑safe digital spaces are needed. Some EU policymakers have even suggested establishing minimum ages for certain online services and algorithmic restrictions for minors.

However, any such measures in the EU would require careful alignment with:

• Charter of Fundamental Rights protections;
• The right to freedom of expression and information;
• Data protection norms (e.g., GDPR’s strict consent and processing requirements);
• Proportionality under EU administrative law.

In the Cyprus context, policymakers would need to reconcile broad safety goals with the principled human‑rights approach that underpins EU jurisprudence.

Key Takeaways for Operators and Regulators

• Australia’s law sets a global benchmark but also highlights enforcement and rights‑based challenges that will resonate worldwide.
• Cyprus and the EU currently favour risk‑reduction and platform accountability frameworks over broad access bans.
• Any future reforms in Cyprus or the EU aiming to protect minors online will need to balance digital safety with fundamental rights protections and data privacy.
• Legal practitioners advising digital businesses should be vigilant about evolving youth‑protection norms, age‑assurance technologies, and how safety obligations intersect with GDPR, DSA, and other EU digital laws.

Feel free to contact us for further professional assistance.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Andria Papageorgiou Law Firm is not responsible for any actions (or lack thereof) taken as a result of relying on or in any way using information contained in this article and in no event shall be liable for any damages resulting from reliance on or use of this information.  

Sources: BBC,  Reuters, The Guardian, Washington Post