The newly approved laws were passed by the Senate and are expected to take effect in at least 12 months. This legislation subjects tech companies to fines as steep as A$50 million ($32.5 million; £25.7 million) for non-compliance.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has championed the legislation, asserting it is essential for shielding young people from the potential harms of social media. This view has been widely supported by various parent groups. However, critics argue that the bill leaves significant questions about its execution and potential impacts on privacy and social interactions unaddressed.

This initiative sets Australia apart by implementing the highest age limit among countries attempting to regulate children's social media usage. Unlike similar efforts, the ban does not permit exemptions for current users or those with parental permission. Explaining the rationale, Albanese stated, "This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood. We want parents to have peace of mind."

The specifics of which social media platforms will be subjected to the ban have not yet been disclosed. These decisions will be made subsequently by Australia’s communications minister, based on the advice from the eSafety Commissioner, an internet regulator. However, platforms focusing on gaming and messaging, as well as sites accessible without an account such as YouTube, might be exempt from the ban.

A form of age-verification technology will be employed to enforce the ban, with different methods to be trialed in the forthcoming months. The responsibility to incorporate these measures lies with the social media platforms. Despite this, digital researchers have expressed skepticism about the efficacy of the unspecified technologies, which could include biometrics or identity verification. They also raise concerns about privacy safeguards.

Furthermore, concerns abound that the restrictions could be bypassed using tools like VPNs which mask a user's location. Notably, children who manage to circumvent the ban will not face penalties.

Survey data, though limited, indicates significant support for the reforms among Australian parents and caregivers. Amy Friedlander, one of the advocates for the ban, stated, "For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out."

Conversely, numerous experts criticize the ban as being overly simplistic. They warn that it might drive children towards less regulated areas of the internet. Companies like Google, Snap, Meta, and TikTok criticized the legislation for its lack of detail, with TikTok particularly concerned that the broad definition could encompass nearly every online service. X, formerly Twitter, questioned the legal validity of the bill, suggesting it might conflict with international regulations and human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory.

Youth advocates have also expressed dissatisfaction, feeling excluded from a discussion that directly impacts their lives. The eSafety Youth Council highlighted their vulnerability to social media's risks while emphasizing the need for their involvement in devising solutions.

Despite the criticisms, Albanese stands firm, acknowledging the complexity of the debate but insisting on the necessity of such measures. "We all know technology moves fast and some people will try to find ways around these new laws but that is not a reason to ignore the responsibility that we have," he said.

Australia’s stringent approach is drawing international attention. Norway has pledged to consider similar measures, and the United Kingdom's technology secretary mentioned a comparable ban as a possibility for the future.