Australia is seeking to strengthen enforcement of its social media ban for children under 16, raising concerns that its online safety regulator could extend its reach beyond the country's borders.
Social media platform X has warned that the proposed legislation would grant Australia's online safety regulator, eSafety, sweeping new powers to impose heavy financial penalties and demand documents from people. According to the company, those powers could apply to individuals and businesses outside Australia.
National laws can, under certain circumstances, have extraterritorial effects if authorities in other countries are willing to cooperate with their enforcement. Governments are increasingly testing those boundaries in the field of online regulation. Most recently, the UK's communications regulator, Ofcom, sought to enforce a financial penalty in the United States.
Australia's legislation centers on its social media ban for minors, which has produced mixed results since taking effect on 10 December 2025. Under the law, designated platforms must take "reasonable steps" to prevent children under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Neither children nor their parents face penalties for violations; responsibility rests solely with the platforms.
Mixed Results
According to the eSafety Commissioner, Australia's online safety regulator, the law applies to platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube and Reddit. The regulator oversees online safety, including illegal content, cyberbullying and compliance with child protection requirements.
Government figures show that more than five million accounts believed to belong to minors have been removed, disabled or restricted. At the same time, eSafety has concluded that many children continue to hold accounts, create new ones or circumvent age-verification measures.
To strengthen enforcement, the government has introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026, which would significantly expand the regulator's investigative powers.
Wider Investigative Powers
Until now, eSafety's information-gathering powers have been directed primarily at platform operators. Under the proposed legislation, however, the regulator would be able to require any person to provide relevant documents or information if it has reasonable grounds to believe they could help determine whether the age restrictions are being observed.
The bill refers broadly to "a person" and contains no explicit limitation to platform operators or individuals based in Australia.
According to the government, the primary targets would be providers of age-verification and age-estimation technologies, app store operators, affiliated companies, service providers and individuals involved in internal compliance decisions. Authorities could request emails, board papers, technical documentation, audit reports and information about how age-verification systems have been configured.
Heavy Penalties
The government argues that the changes are necessary because eSafety currently relies largely on information provided by the platforms themselves and cannot independently verify claims about the effectiveness of their age-verification systems.
The bill would also double the maximum penalty for systemic violations of the age restrictions from A$49.5m ($34.9m) to A$99m ($69.8m). Failure to comply with information requests would likewise carry tougher penalties.
The legislation has already passed the House of Representatives but is still awaiting approval in the Senate. The relevant committee is expected to report by 25 August.
In its submission, X argues that the bill could be interpreted as allowing eSafety to compel a person in the United States or another country to produce documents if that individual is connected in some way to a company subject to the law.
Beyond Australia's Borders
X says this approach conflicts with the principle of international comity, under which states respect one another's legal systems and territorial jurisdiction. In the company's view, an Australian regulator should not be able to issue administrative orders to individuals in California, Europe or elsewhere.
The platform also argues that the bill provides insufficient protection for trade secrets and confidential documents. It adds that, under the wording of the legislation, ordinary users, parents or employees could theoretically become subject to information requests. The proposed financial penalties, it says, are disproportionate.
Domestic Concerns
X is not alone in raising these issues. Australia's Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI) and the Law Council of Australia have expressed similar concerns. Both organizations argue that the bill's wording could, on its face, extend to children, parents or other end users if they possess relevant documents or information.
The government maintains that eSafety will use its powers in a targeted manner against platforms and their technical service providers.
The proposed legislation therefore goes beyond child online safety. It raises a broader question about how far governments should be able to extend digital regulation beyond their own borders. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any such powers would depend on whether authorities in other countries are willing to recognize and enforce them.