How Australia found itself battling big tech over social media for children

In recent years, multiple whistleblowers and lawsuits have claimed that social media firms are prioritising profits over user safety.

In January, a landmark trial will begin in the US hearing allegations that several – including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube – have designed their apps to be addictive and knowingly covered up the harm their platforms cause. All deny this, but Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and Snap boss Evan Spiegel have both been ordered to testify in person.

The case consolidates hundreds of claims from parents and school districts, and is among the first to advance from a flood of similar lawsuits which allege social media contributes to poor mental health and child exploitation.

In another ongoing case, state prosecutors alleged that Zuckerberg personally scuttled efforts to improve the wellbeing of teens on the company's platforms, including vetoing a proposal to ditch Instagram face-altering beauty filters which experts say fuel body dysmorphia and eating disorders.

Former Meta employees Sarah Wynn-Williams, Frances Haugen and Arturo Béjar have given testimony before the US Congress alleging a range of wrongdoing they observed during their stints at the company.

Meta maintains the company has worked diligently to create tools that keep teens safe online.

But the broader industry has also recently been taken to task over mis- and disinformation, hate speech and violent content.

Graphic footage of the assassination of Charlie Kirk was rapidly spread on various platforms, even confronting people who were not seeking it out. Elon Musk has sued states in the US over laws that require social media firms, including X, to define and disclose how they fight hate speech online. And Meta was heavily criticised earlier this year after announcing it was getting rid of factcheckers who monitor its platforms for misinformation.

A rare bipartisan front has emerged among American lawmakers eager to cut tech bosses down to size.

During a hearing last year, Zuckerberg was prodded by one to apologise to bereaved families who had come to watch in person. Among those in the audience was Tammy Rodriguez, whose 11-year old daughter Selena took her life after facing sexual exploitation on Instagram and Snapchat.

"This is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industry wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer," Zuckerberg said.

Asked why her government was unsympathetic to this reasoning - why anything short of a ban was unacceptable - Wells said the tech companies have had plenty of time to improve their practices.

"They have had 15, 20 years in this space to do that of their own volition now, and… it's not enough."

Leaders in other countries feel the same, and have been knocking on her door for help, she says, rattling off the EU, Fiji, Greece, even Malta, as examples.

Denmark and Norway have already begun work on similar laws, and Singapore and Brazil are watching closely too.

"We're pleased to be the first, we're proud to be the first, and we stand ready to help any other jurisdiction who seeks to do these things," Wells said.

As the Australia ban loomed, the mounting pressure prompted the companies to introduce versions of their products marketed as safer for young users, said Pinar Yildirim, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

Australia, after all, is a major market for social platforms. At parliamentary hearings in October Snapchat said it believed it had about 440,000 account users in the country aged between 13 and 15. TikTok said it had about 200,000 under-16 accounts and Meta said it had about 450,000 between Facebook and Instagram.

Experts say they are also eager to ensure they don't lose others in even larger markets around the world.

Forced onto the defensive, the companies have attempted to convey that they are making a good faith effort to comply with Australia's impending ban despite their disagreement with it.

But analysts say they'll be hoping the hurdles - which include legal challenges, technology loopholes for kids, and any unintended consequences of the ban - could bolster the case against such moves in other nations.

And the companies "have a fair bit of influence in how smoothly things go", Professor Fast points out.

"[They] have an incentive to walk the very fine line about complying, but making sure that they don't comply so good that all the rest of the other countries go, 'Great, that works. Let's do the same'," Mr Scheeler agrees.

And the fines - a maximum of A$49.5m ($33m, £24.5m) for serious breaches - might just be seen as the cost of doing business, according to Carnegie Mellon University marketing professor Ari Lightman. "[They're] a drop in the bucket," he says, especially for larger players eager to secure their next generation of potential users.

Despite the concerns around the policy's implementation, Mr Scheeler says he feels like this is a "seatbelt moment" for social media.

"Some would argue that bad regulation is worse than no regulation, and sometimes that's true, but I think in this instance, even imperfect regulation is better than nothing, or better than what we had before," he says.

"Maybe it will work, maybe it won't work, but at least we're trying something."

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.