All About Cookies is an independent, advertising-supported website. Some of the offers that appear on this site are from third-party advertisers from which All About Cookies receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear).
All About Cookies does not include all financial or credit offers that might be available to consumers nor do we include all companies or all available products. Information is accurate as of the publishing date and has not been provided or endorsed by the advertiser.
The All About Cookies editorial team strives to provide accurate, in-depth information and reviews to help you, our reader, make online privacy decisions with confidence. Here's what you can expect from us:
- All About Cookies makes money when you click the links on our site to some of the products and offers that we mention. These partnerships do not influence our opinions or recommendations. Read more about how we make money.
- Partners are not able to review or request changes to our content except for compliance reasons.
- We aim to make sure everything on our site is up-to-date and accurate as of the publishing date, but we cannot guarantee we haven't missed something. It's your responsibility to double-check all information before making any decision. If you spot something that looks wrong, please let us know.
Australia's push to strengthen enforcement of its world-first social media ban for children under 16 is drawing fresh opposition from Elon Musk's X, which argues the proposed changes would give the country's online safety regulator powers that extend beyond its borders and conflict with international law.[1]
The social media platform made its case in a submission to an Australian Senate committee reviewing legislation that would significantly expand the authority of the country's eSafety Commissioner.
Among other changes, the bill would double the maximum penalty for noncompliance to A$99 million (about $69 million) and broaden the regulator's ability to compel companies to provide documents during investigations, citing Meta, TikTok, and YouTube as examples.
X argued the proposed amendments would "compel any person outside Australia ... to provide information and documents merely because they are 'affiliated' with a company," describing the proposal as being "in clear conflict" with international legal principles.
Australia says stronger powers are needed
Industry pushback
Earlier clashes between X and Australia's regulator
Global implications
Why X is challenging the proposal
Australia's social media ban, which took effect in December 2025, places the responsibility for keeping users under 16 off covered platforms on the companies themselves rather than on parents or children. Platforms are expected to take "reasonable steps" to verify users' ages. Recently, they eyed an expansion to VPN banning as well.
The new bill is designed to strengthen the government's ability to determine whether companies are actually complying.
In its submission, however, X argued the proposal fails to give sufficient consideration to procedural fairness, privacy, online services, and Australia's digital economy.
The company also warned the expanded investigative powers could have a "severe impact on international comity," a legal principle under which countries generally respect one another's judicial systems and legal authority.
Musk has previously criticized Australia's social media restrictions, describing the under-16 ban as "a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians."
The new legislation has not yet become law. An Australian Senate committee is expected to deliver its recommendations on the bill by Aug. 25.
Australia says stronger powers are needed
Australian officials argue the regulator's current authority isn't sufficient to verify whether platforms are actually complying with the law.
According to Reuters reporting, the eSafety Commissioner currently relies heavily on companies' own representations about whether they're meeting the requirements because its existing document-gathering powers are limited.
The regulator also reportedly said it lacks the authority to compel records from third-party age-assurance providers hired by social media companies, creating what it described as "significant" barriers to investigations.
Industry pushback
DIGI, an Australian technology industry association whose members include several major platforms, argued the eSafety Commissioner already has broad enforcement powers that have not yet been fully tested and called for greater clarity about whose documents regulators could require.
Meanwhile, YouTube and TikTok separately told lawmakers that there is currently no foolproof method to reliably identify and block every underage user.
A study published in Computer Law & Security Review conducted since the ban took effect has also suggested that many Australian teenagers under 16 continue to maintain social media accounts despite the restrictions, as the Australian approach “suffers from significant legal and practical weaknesses.”
Earlier clashes between X and Australia's regulator
The latest disagreement continues a years-long conflict between X and Australia's eSafety Commissioner.
In 2024, the platform challenged an order requiring it to remove footage of the Wakeley church stabbing worldwide, arguing Australia should not be able to dictate what users in other countries could see online. The dispute became an international flashpoint in debates over government authority and platform moderation, and the order was ultimately withdrawn.
The new proposal would give the regulator additional tools to investigate those cases by expanding its ability to obtain documents during compliance investigations.
Global implications
Governments around the world are considering stronger online protections for children.
Lawmakers in the United Kingdom and other countries have weighed similar age-based restrictions, while technology companies continue to argue that accurately verifying users' ages without creating new privacy risks remains a significant technical challenge.
The outcome of Australia's latest proposal could help shape how governments enforce future age verification laws, particularly when investigations involve global technology companies with employees, affiliates, and data located outside the country.