ESAFETY - 'Social Media Minimum Age: Compliance Update' report

Question

On the March 2026 report entitled ''Social Media Minimum Age: Compliance Update'': 1. 5 investigations were announced in the report. Why were these compliance issues not sorted out in the 12 months that eSafety had to assess platforms' age assurance technologies? 2. What is the status of each of the 5 investigations? 3. eSafety refers to 'poor practices' of some platforms. Why were these practices not corrected before the ban began? 4. For each webinar that eSafety has held in relation to the SMMA, identify the date, audience (industry/parents), number of attendees and the nature and cost of any expenses involved in hosting the webinar. 5. 4.7 million accounts were reported as being removed in the inital ban wave. How many accounts were held by Australians under 16 on or around 10 December 2025? 6. 7 in 10 parents who reported that their child had an account prior to 10 December 2025 reported that their child still had an account on various platforms. Does eSafety believe this is an acceptable return on the $50 million that has been invested by the government in the social media ban? 7. How do the government and eSafety reconcile blaming the platforms with the fact that they had a year to get compliance right? 8. The report states: ''At least one platform sent communications to users with age-restricted accounts where the user had already self-declared that they were under 16.'' Which platform? 9. The report states: ''Some platforms have enabled a high number of re-attempts for users undergoing age assurance.'' Which platforms and how many attempts were recorded as being permitted? 10. The report states: ''It is likely that many Australian children aged under 16 have been able to retain their accounts by securing a false 16+ outcome through multiple attempts at the same age assurance method.'' How many children? Approximately? 11. If the social media services are in breach of these rules, why have they not been fined yet? 12. Why was the law designed to make it so difficult to implement penalties? 13. Is facial scanning alone poor practice, according to eSafety? 14. Why was age estimation technology, like face scanning, suggested to be ''a mature, secure and adaptable tool for enforcing age-based access'' in the report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial? 15. Why was it suggested that age estimation was a ''a mature, secure and adaptable tool for enforcing age-based access'' when serious questions were raised by the report and ignored by the government (until now)? 16. Has eSafety or the government's view of age estimation technology changed?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000690.pdf (opens in a new tab)