The Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025 would repeal the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 by removing the statutory minimum‑age framework from the Online Safety Act 2021 and reversing related amendments in the Age Discrimination Act 2004. It deletes the category of "age‑restricted social media platform," removes Part 4A (the provisions implementing minimum‑age rules) and alters the enforcement regime.
Professionals should care because the bill rolls back regulatory obligations imposed on platforms, reduces some enforcement penalties, and creates transitional rules governing previously registered industry codes and standards. The change reallocates responsibility for age management away from a statutory regime and toward platforms, industry codes and other non‑statutory mechanisms — with consequences for compliance, risk assessment and enforcement strategy.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the Online Safety Act 2021 by repealing definitions tied to the minimum‑age framework and removing Part 4A (the statutory social‑media minimum‑age provisions). It also replaces or reduces specified penalties in the Act and removes corresponding entries in the Age Discrimination Act 2004.
Who It Affects
Large and small social media providers operating in Australia, legal and compliance teams that implement age‑verification and content‑moderation controls, industry code authors and the eSafety Commissioner’s enforcement functions. It also affects entities that relied on the statutory minimum‑age framework in contracts or policy design.
Why It Matters
The repeal removes a federally mandated baseline for age controls, changing the legal baseline against which codes, directions and enforcement actions will be measured. That alters the compliance landscape for providers and shifts regulatory leverage away from the eSafety Commissioner toward industry self‑regulation and commercial decisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates by editing the Online Safety Act 2021: it deletes the statutory text that defined and created obligations around "age‑restricted social media platforms" and removes Part 4A — the chunk of law that set minimum‑age requirements and the enforcement machinery that accompanied them. Removing those definitions means the Act no longer differentiates a distinct category of platforms subject to minimum‑age rules, so statutory duties that once applied to that category fall away.
Alongside the deletions, the bill rewrites the penalty architecture for a small set of provisions. Several earlier provisions that carried much larger penalties are replaced or reduced to a civil penalty of 500 penalty units.
The bill also excises specific sections (for example, named provisions used to support the minimum‑age regime) and strips related powers the Act had given the eSafety Commissioner to direct industry in relation to minimum age rules.The repeal reaches beyond the Online Safety Act by removing a relevant table item in the Age Discrimination Act 2004 that had interacted with the minimum‑age scheme. Practically, that eliminates the statutory intersection that had insulated some minimum‑age rules from age‑discrimination claims.
The bill includes transitional language: directions issued under the amended penalty provisions and failures to comply with industry standards apply only for directions/instances occurring on or after commencement, but that provision expressly covers directions and standards that were registered before the repeal.Operationally, the immediate effect is legal: platforms lose a federal statutory floor governing minimum age; however, those platforms still face industry codes, voluntary standards, contractual terms and other regulatory instruments (including state or territory laws) that may continue to generate obligations. For regulators and providers the bill creates a shift from a prescriptive statutory model to one where compliance choices will be resolved through codes, commercial practice and possible litigation over the scope of remaining Online Safety Act provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021 — the statutory section that enacted the social‑media minimum‑age regime.
It removes the statutory definitions for “age‑restricted social media platform” and “age‑restricted user,” eliminating the legal category those terms created.
Subsection 143’s penalty and subsection 146(1)’s penalty are changed so certain contraventions carry a civil penalty of 500 penalty units (replacing previously higher figures or different penalties).
The bill repeals specified sections supporting enforcement (including sections numbered 222A and 239B in the Act) and deletes associated paragraph powers in sections 27 and 25 that related to minimum‑age functions.
Transitional clauses make the penalty and compliance changes apply to directions and failures occurring on or after commencement, and explicitly cover industry codes or standards that were registered before commencement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Delete the age‑restricted definitions
The bill repeals the paragraph in section 4 that introduced age‑related wording and removes the definitions of “age‑restricted social media platform” and “age‑restricted user” from section 5. Removing those definitions collapses the statutory category that triggered minimum‑age obligations; in practice, that means any duties, thresholds or obligations keyed to those defined terms no longer have an anchoring definition in the Act, creating immediate statutory deregulatory effect for covered platforms.
Narrow the Commissioner’s stated functions
The bill trims the enumerated functions of the eSafety Commissioner by deleting text that tied certain coordinating and minimum‑age functions to the Commissioner’s mandate and by repealing related paragraph powers in section 27. That limits the Act’s express legislative basis for centralised coordination of minimum‑age policy and reduces the statutory text that a Commissioner could rely on when issuing directions or exercising related powers.
Remove the statutory minimum‑age regime
Part 4A — the core provisions that implemented the social‑media minimum‑age regime — is repealed wholesale. Repeal extinguishes the statutory duties, mechanisms for registration or categorisation and any enforcement hooks that Part 4A created. That transfers the practical burden for age management back to platforms, existing codes, standards and other legal regimes that remain in force.
Reduce certain penalties to 500 penalty units
The bill replaces or reduces specific penalties in the Act so that contraventions tied to the amended subsections carry a civil penalty of 500 penalty units. It removes a prior 30,000 figure from subsection 146(1) and repeals a few penalty‑bearing subsections entirely. The practical effect is to lower the statutory financial exposure for certain contraventions previously connected to the minimum‑age regime.
Take out enforcement‑supporting sections
The bill repeals specific sections such as 222A and 239B and removes references to “age‑restricted social media platform” in headings and subsections (for example, section 238). These are technical deletions that clean up cross‑references and eliminate statutory hooks that previously supported enforcement and reporting around the minimum‑age regime.
Undo a related discrimination law amendment
The bill repeals a table item in Schedule 2 of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 that had been added to interact with the minimum‑age scheme. Removing that item eliminates the specific statutory interaction between age‑discrimination law and the now‑repealed minimum‑age provisions, reopening legal questions about how discrimination claims intersect with platform age policies.
Make changes apply to directions and standards from commencement
Two transitional provisions clarify reach: amendments to section 143 apply to directions given on or after commencement (including those relating to industry codes registered before commencement), and the amendments to section 146 apply to failures to comply with an industry standard occurring on or after commencement (including standards registered before commencement). Those clauses reduce some retroactivity concerns but also preserve the Commissioner’s power to act on new non‑compliance after the repeal.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- National and international social media providers — remove statutory minimum‑age duties and reduce certain penalty exposure, lowering compliance and legal costs tied specifically to the federal minimum‑age regime.
- Startups and smaller platforms — gain regulatory simplicity because registration, categorisation and prescriptive compliance obligations tied to the removed definitions and Part 4A no longer apply.
- Industry associations and code developers — regain leverage to set voluntary standards and negotiate commercial age‑management approaches without a competing statutory floor; industry codes become the primary locus of technical rules.
- Corporate compliance teams — fewer prescriptive federal rules reduces immediate statutory checklists to implement, simplifying some compliance programs and reducing the need to redesign product onboarding solely to satisfy the repealed statutory regime.
Who Bears the Cost
- eSafety Commissioner and enforcement agencies — lose explicit statutory tools and clearer penalty teeth to enforce minimum‑age rules, narrowing their regulatory remit and potentially reducing deterrence.
- Child safety advocates and some parents — may face increased safety risk if platforms choose lighter age‑verification approaches absent statutory minimums; protective measures will rely more on voluntary practice than legal compulsion.
- Legal teams and courts — could see increased litigation over the scope and interpretation of remaining Online Safety Act provisions and how they apply to age‑related harms, as well as disputes about transitional directions and previously registered codes.
- Governments and policymakers — may face political and administrative costs responding to gaps in uniform age protection, and may need to consider alternative interventions (education, funding, or state measures) to address child online safety.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving a clear, enforceable federal floor for protecting children online — which imposes compliance costs and heavy enforcement requirements on platforms — and returning authority to industry and non‑statutory instruments to minimize regulatory burden and allow commercial flexibility, but at the cost of consistency, enforceability and potentially lower deterrence against harmful practices.
The bill resolves the discrete legal question of whether a federal statutory minimum age should remain part of the Online Safety Act by removing the statutory architecture; it does not impose a new alternative federal framework. That produces a regime where protection standards will be largely delegated to industry codes, contractual terms and platform policy.
The practical implication is a patchwork of obligations that could vary by platform size, market power and willingness to self‑regulate.
Implementation risks are real. Deleting definitions and Part 4A creates interpretive gaps: other provisions in the Online Safety Act that refer to age or platform duties may require judicial or regulatory interpretation to clarify their continued application.
The reduction of penalties to 500 penalty units lowers a deterrent that had been designed to enforce compliance with minimum‑age obligations; whether industry self‑regulation and reputational risk provide equivalent deterrence is uncertain. The transitional clauses limit retroactivity but leave open disputes about directions issued shortly before commencement and about obligations tied to previously registered codes and standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.