Is 2025 the year teens get banned from social media?

Last week, Australia made waves by passing a landmark bill banning social media use for children under 16. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X now face fines of up to 50 million AUD ($32 million) if they fail to comply. But what does this really mean for social platforms? Here, Head of Trust & Safety EMEA, Ailís Daly, reflects on key commentary and poses the question: Will this drive innovation or lead to courtroom battles?

The bill, which cleared the House of Representatives on Wednesday, does carve out exceptions for messaging, online gaming, and educational or health-related services like Headspace, Kids Helpline, Google Classroom, and YouTube. Social media companies have a year to figure out how to implement these sweeping changes.

A growing global trend

Australia may be the first to enact such a sweeping ban, but it’s far from alone in rethinking how young people engage with social media:

• France: In 2023, France passed a law requiring social platforms to obtain parental consent for minors under 15 to create accounts.
• Denmark: Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen also called for a 15-and-over age minimum on social media.
• Italy: Children under the age of 14 need parental consent to sign up for social media accounts, while no consent is required from that age upwards.
• Norway: The Norwegian government last month proposed raising the age at which children can consent to the terms required to use social media to 15 years.
• US: The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, proposes prohibiting children under 13 from using social media platforms and requires parental consent for users aged 13 to 17. It also mandates social media companies to implement age verification measures. As of November 2024, the bill is under consideration in Congress.

The international momentum is undeniable, but so is the controversy.

Divided opinions in Australia

Reactions to Australia’s ban have been polarizing.

Critics, including Australia’s Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind, argue that bans oversimplify a complex problem. “We shouldn’t rush to assume social media is inherently harmful,” she wrote on LinkedIn. “Incremental changes, combined with strong privacy laws, could better shape this environment.”

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, echo these concerns. Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay warned the ban might strip vulnerable children of vital social lifelines.

On the other side, cyberpsychology expert Dr. Mary Aiken praised the move as a long-overdue victory for child safety advocates. “Today is a good day for those of us who’ve campaigned to regulate social media for kids,” she said. Dr. Aiken believes the ban could push tech companies to finally invest in available safety and age-verification technologies.

Will social media bans drive innovation or courtroom battles?

As Dr. Aiken points out, “Cybersecurity protects data, but it doesn’t protect what it is to be human online.” She suggests that a full range of safety technologies—already in existence—could address these issues without resorting to bans.

Her prediction? The ban might force tech companies to prioritize implementing solutions, making bans unnecessary in the future.

But not everyone is optimistic. Some anticipate fierce legal battles, particularly in countries like the U.S., where courts are grappling with social media regulations and free speech rights. With billions of dollars and fundamental freedoms on the line, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

What’s next?

Social Media has become an integral part of teen life, offering education, connection, and opportunities. But it also exposes them to serious risks like cyberbullying, exploitation, and harmful content. By imposing steep penalties and a seemingly extreme measure, Australia is applying pressure where it hurts most — tech companies’ pockets — to compel innovation.

The idea is simple: if these platforms face significant fines or legal consequences for failing to enforce age restrictions and mitigate harm, they’ll be motivated to invest in advanced solutions. When billions of dollars are at stake, the “impossible” quickly becomes a problem worth solving.

Is 2025 the year teens get banned from social media?

I foresee Australia and other jurisdictions following through on their threat and banning teens from social media next year, but only if nothing changes. If tech companies can channel the same ingenuity that took us to the moon or developed life-saving vaccines, we might soon see a digital world where teens can thrive without unnecessary exposure to harm. In this case, a little shock might be just what’s needed to spark meaningful innovation.

Even if tech companies rise to the challenge and develop robust age-verification systems, a significant issue remains: who decides what an ‘age-appropriate experience’ should look like? The concept of age-appropriateness is highly subjective, influenced by cultural, societal, and individual family values. What one parent considers harmless entertainment, another may view as overly mature or even harmful.

Until this question is resolved, even the best tools for age verification and content moderation risk falling short of their potential. Ultimately, the question isn’t just whether teens will get banned from social media — but whether we can build a safer digital world for them and agree on what that world should look like.