What Australia’s New Social Media Laws Really Mean for Business

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

What Australia’s New Social Media Laws Really Mean for Business

Why “just checking age” can quietly create big privacy risks

Australia’s new social media laws are designed to protect children online. That aim is widely supported, and rightly so. But for businesses, particularly those operating online, the new minimum-age framework raises a much bigger and more complex question than many people realise: how do you check someone’s age without creating serious privacy risks in the process?

At first glance, age checking sounds simple. Many business owners assume it is just a matter of asking for a date of birth, ticking a box, or plugging in a third-party tool. In reality, age assurance sits at the intersection of child safety law, privacy law, technology, and risk management — and getting it wrong can expose businesses to regulatory action, complaints, data breaches, and reputational damage.

As technology writer Tim O’Reilly once put it, “Data is power — but it is also responsibility.” That responsibility becomes much heavier when children’s data is involved.

Why age checks are not as simple as they sound

In the physical world, age checks are familiar and limited. A bartender glances at an ID, confirms the age, and hands it back. No record is kept. No database is built. The interaction ends there.

Online age checks are very different. To verify age digitally, businesses often end up collecting far more information than they intended. This can include identity documents, facial images, biometric data, or information that becomes linked to an account and stored indefinitely. What starts as an age check can quietly turn into an identity system.

That is where the risk lies. Once personal data is collected, privacy law applies. Once sensitive or biometric data is involved, the legal stakes rise sharply. Once children’s data is in the mix, regulators expect an even higher standard of care.

The danger is not malicious intent. The danger is over-collection through convenience.

What the new Australian laws are actually trying to do

Australia’s social media minimum-age scheme sits within the Online Safety framework and places obligations on certain platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Importantly, the obligation sits with the platform — not with parents, and not with children themselves.

What the law does not say is that businesses must collect passports, scan faces, or build permanent identity records. In fact, Australian regulators are increasingly clear that child protection measures should not result in mass identity tracking.

The intent is protection, not surveillance. The law is trying to limit children’s exposure to harmful online environments while avoiding the creation of new privacy harms in the process.

How ordinary Australian businesses can get caught

?

Many businesses assume these rules only affect global social media giants. That is a risky assumption. Age assurance and children’s data issues can arise in everyday commercial contexts.

Businesses running apps, platforms, forums, online communities, learning tools, gaming features, or social functions may all find that children use or attempt to use their services. Marketing campaigns, competitions, loyalty programs and influencer promotions can easily involve children’s personal information, particularly when run through social platforms. Education, wellbeing, fitness and mental-health services often attract teenage users, placing them squarely in a high-risk regulatory category.

Even businesses that outsource age checks to third-party providers remain legally responsible. Australian privacy law does not allow responsibility to be “outsourced away”. If something goes wrong, it is the business that will be asked to explain what data was collected, why it was necessary, how it was protected, and how long it was kept.

The biggest trap: when age checks become identity collectionWhat “reasonable steps” really means in practice

For businesses, “reasonable steps” does not mean perfection, but it does mean being able to justify decisions. Regulators are far less interested in slogans than in evidence.

A business should be able to explain why it chose a particular age-assurance method, whether less intrusive options were considered, how personal data is minimised, how long information is retained, who can access it, and what safeguards are in place. Documentation matters. Governance matters. Being able to tell a clear, logical story about your decisions matters.

This is where many businesses get caught out. They rely on a tool, assume it is compliant, and never ask what data it collects or how it works. That approach is unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.

Why this is not something to take lightly

Age assurance touches trust, brand reputation, and legal compliance all at once. If something goes wrong — a complaint, a breach, or a regulatory investigation — the consequences can be serious and long-lasting.

As Maya Angelou famously said, “People will never forget how you made them feel.” Parents, users and regulators will remember how a business handled children’s data, particularly if harm occurs.

Getting advice early is almost always cheaper, faster and safer than fixing problems later.

When to get legal advice

You should consider getting advice if:

your business collects age, identity or biometric data,

children may be using your service,

you rely on third-party age-checking tools,

you are unsure how long data should be kept, or

your privacy policy has not been updated recently.

Early advice is far cheaper than fixing problems later.

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.