social media firms cannot use ID exclusively for age verification.

This amendment, although intended to protect privacy, has resulted in a challenging scenario for nearly 20 million Australian users of social media. Users are now faced with a choice between providing identification or facial data to continue utilizing these platforms. Initially, the expectation was that users would primarily need to show ID, as it is the most reliable method for confirming age. However, the legislation requires platforms to provide an alternative option, and biometric data—specifically facial estimation technology designed to assess age based on someone’s appearance—has emerged as a likely candidate.

The issue of facial recognition technology is not without controversy, especially after the privacy commissioner's findings against Bunnings, which highlighted the sensitive nature of biometric data. While restricting social media firms from mandating ID might appear beneficial for privacy, some experts, like Lizzie O'Shea from Digital Rights Watch, argue this could lead to a preference for invasive technologies like biometrics due to a lack of other feasible alternatives.

Though biometric verification is one of the non-ID methods available, users might feel more comfortable with facial recognition, similar to unlocking their smartphones. Various platforms, including TikTok, Tinder, and Meta, have already begun integrating such technologies as part of their voluntary compliance efforts.

However, from a privacy standpoint, neither biometric verification nor government-issued ID presents an ideal solution. Beyond privacy concerns, the accuracy of age-detection algorithms raises another critical issue, as recent studies indicate that the efficacy of such technology varies among different demographic groups—such as those with glasses or individuals of varying ethnic backgrounds.

The new law lacks specificity concerning how social media companies are expected to prevent users under the age of 16 from accessing their services, merely stating that platforms must take "reasonable steps." Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner responsible for guiding these platforms, will soon issue recommendations regarding compliance with the legislation, although the expectations surrounding "reasonable steps" could lead to legal hurdles in the future.

The government’s vague wording is a strategic choice aimed at allowing flexibility for technological advancements without necessitating constant legislative updates. However, this absence of clarity could pose challenges for regulators if they find themselves in court against tech companies resistant to the $50 million fines outlined in the new law. Ultimately, only time will tell if social media platforms effectively adapt to the new regulations or if the law will lead to further complications in enforcing age limits online.