"From the U.S. to Australia": Escalating Youth Social Media Regulations Leave Big Tech Facing Mounting Liability and Litigation Pressure

Lawmakers in both chambers of the U.S. Congress push child online safety legislation
Meta faces mounting pressure from regulation and court battles, even lobbying to shield itself from lawsuits
Australia’s youth social media restrictions continue to generate controversy after implementation

The U.S. Congress is advancing legislation aimed at strengthening the duty of social media platforms to protect children. The move reflects a broader effort to tighten oversight of major technology companies and prevent minors from being exposed to harmful online content without adequate safeguards. Similar regulatory trends are emerging across multiple countries, placing direct pressure on social media operators including Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

U.S. Congressional Push for Social Media Regulation

According to Bloomberg and other foreign media outlets on June 23 (local time), both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are currently pursuing legislation designed to strengthen online protections for children. While years of lobbying by major technology firms and political disagreements delayed progress, bipartisan consensus has recently emerged, significantly increasing the likelihood of passage. A bipartisan proposal for the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act), released by House Energy and Commerce Committee leadership, would require platforms such as Meta and Google to apply strong privacy and safety settings by default to accounts belonging to minors. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and Ranking Member Frank Pallone said in a joint statement that the legislation would “empower parents, enhance privacy protections for children and teenagers, and hold Big Tech accountable.”

In the Senate, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), introduced by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, remains under consideration. The centerpiece of the bill is a “duty of care” provision that would impose legal responsibility on social media companies if algorithms recommend harmful content involving eating disorders, online bullying, self-harm, or similar material that causes harm to minors. Blackburn stated that “without a duty of care, Big Tech will continue prioritizing profits over child safety,” adding that the White House supports the approach. The White House is also reportedly considering linking child online safety legislation with a separate proposal requiring app store operators to verify users’ ages.

State governments across the United States began addressing youth exposure to digital environments even before federal lawmakers intensified discussions. New York, for example, launched pilot restrictions on cellphone use in certain school districts in 2024. Large districts, including New York City Public Schools, implemented classroom bans or mandatory device storage policies and reported improvements in student concentration and classroom discipline. At the same time, growing parental concerns over cyberbullying and social media addiction fueled public support for broader restrictions. In line with this trend, New York lawmakers established a legal framework in May of last year requiring limits on smartphone use in schools. During the policy rollout, Governor Kathy Hochul described smartphones as a “major distraction” in classrooms and emphasized the connection between increased social media use and deteriorating youth mental health.

Meta Confronts Regulatory and Legal Pressures

Major technology companies have expressed opposition to these developments. Meta, in particular, has reportedly attempted to influence the legislative process. On June 18, Reuters cited sources saying that Meta sought to insert language into the Kids Online Safety Act that would benefit the company. Meta’s proposed provision stated that “online companies shall be immune from lawsuits and liability under state law arising from any claims related to online safety or privacy issues involving individuals under the age of 18.” According to sources, Meta initially opposed the legislation but later offered to withdraw its opposition if the provision were included. The company argued that the language would not affect existing lawsuits. However, representatives of the American Association for Justice warned that enactment of the provision could result in the dismissal of all related litigation.

The lobbying effort is widely viewed as being tied to Meta’s long-standing legal risks. In 2023, Seattle Public Schools in Washington State filed a lawsuit against Meta, Google, Snap, and ByteDance, alleging that their platforms were intentionally designed to maximize youth engagement and contributed to worsening mental health outcomes among students. The case became a catalyst for a wave of similar lawsuits filed by school districts across the United States.

In July of the same year, a teenage user identified as “K.G.M.” filed a similar lawsuit against Meta and Google in a Los Angeles court. By October, state-level pressure had intensified as attorneys general from 33 states jointly sued Meta in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2023, New Mexico separately sued Meta, alleging that the company misled consumers about the safety of Facebook and Instagram while allowing minors to remain vulnerable to sexual exploitation and online predation.

Pressure on Meta’s social media services extends beyond the courtroom. Concerns over illegal advertising have recently emerged as a potential threat to profitability. Reuters reported in November of last year, citing internal Meta documents, that the company generated approximately $16 billion in revenue from illegal advertisements displayed on its platforms. These advertisements reportedly included fraudulent e-commerce schemes, investment scams, illegal online gambling, and prohibited medical products. High-risk scam advertisements visible to users were estimated to total roughly 15 billion impressions per day. Meta has relied on automated systems to police illegal advertisements, but advertisers are reportedly blocked only when there is a 95% probability that fraud is occurring. Critics argue that such a threshold reflects an extremely passive enforcement approach.

These practices have attracted scrutiny from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and British regulators. This year, the issue has also evolved into tangible legal risk, with lawsuits filed by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and authorities in Santa Clara County, California. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona have introduced legislation requiring verification of advertisers on social media platforms in an effort to curb fraudulent advertising and strengthen oversight.

Australia’s Tough Social Media Restrictions Generate Side Effects

The global push for stricter social media regulation extends well beyond the United States. Australia represents one of the most prominent examples. In December of last year, Australia became the first major country to implement legislation blocking social media accounts for users under the age of 16. The law authorizes fines of up to $32 million against social media companies that fail to take reasonable measures to prevent account ownership by users under 16. According to Australia’s online safety regulator eSafety, the 10 social media platforms covered by the law deleted or blocked approximately 4.7 million accounts belonging to users under 16 within a month of implementation. The figure greatly exceeded initial projections and equated to roughly two accounts for every individual in that age group across Australia.

The problem is that the measure has since sparked conflict between social media platforms and Australian authorities. In March, eSafety announced that it was investigating Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok over “serious concerns” regarding compliance with the social media restriction law. Authorities argued that large numbers of Australian teenagers continue to maintain existing accounts or create new ones and that significant loopholes persist, including the ability for users under 16 to repeatedly attempt age verification until receiving an adult classification. In this regard, Communications Minister Anika Wells stated that “social media platforms want this law to fail, which is why they are taking only the minimum necessary action,” adding that companies operating in Australia must comply with Australian law. eSafety plans to complete at least part of its investigations by midyear and determine appropriate enforcement measures.

Questions regarding the effectiveness of the regulations themselves also remain unresolved. Many teenagers have migrated to alternative applications that are either outside the scope of the restrictions or subject to less stringent oversight. Australian broadcaster ABC reported shortly after the law took effect in December that demand for lesser-known social media applications such as Lemon8 and Yope surged as users under 16 searched for alternatives to TikTok and Instagram. eSafety has since issued formal requests for information to both Lemon8 and Yope, warning that the applications could also become subject to regulation. Experts, however, argue that even if additional platforms are added to the enforcement list, the underlying structure of the policy makes it difficult to avoid an endless game of regulatory whack-a-mole.