Transfer Pricing Senior Manager - Tax Transfer Pricing

Australia prepares to sue Meta, TikTok over under-16 social media ban. Australia is preparing legal action against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Google over alleged breaches of its under-16 social media ban. Here's what could happen next. Oct 21, 2026 We may earn from vendors via affiliate links or sponsorships. This might affect product placement on our site, but not the content of our reviews. See our Terms of Use for details. Australia's under-16 social media ban could soon face its biggest enforcement test, with major technology companies potentially headed to court. The Australian government is preparing legal action against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Google over alleged failures to enforce the country's minimum-age restrictions, Communications Minister Anika Wells told Bloomberg. The companies operate Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, respectively. Australia's eSafety Commissioner began investigating the platforms in March over possible violations of legislation requiring social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from maintaining accounts. No formal court proceedings had been filed as of Oct. 20, but Wells said regulators were gathering evidence for potential Federal Court cases. "The law is not failing - platforms are failing to comply with the law," Wells said during an Oct. 15 speech to the National Press Club, Bloomberg reported. Enforcement powers raise the stakes. Australia's ban took effect in December last year, making it the first country to introduce nationwide restrictions of this kind. An eSafety report published in July found that most underage users could still access social media, largely because age-verification systems were ineffective. The government has since doubled the maximum penalty for breaches to 109.2 million Australian dollars ($76 million). New investigative powers, which took effect in September, also allow the regulator to demand relevant documents and summon current or former employees for questioning. These powers could help investigators compare companies' public compliance claims with internal records about their age-checking systems. The technology behind the legal fight. The cases will test what constitutes "reasonable steps" to keep children off restricted platforms. That standard leaves companies some flexibility in choosing their enforcement methods, but it also creates uncertainty about what courts will consider sufficient. Platforms can use behavioral signals, age-estimation technology or third-party verification services. Yet detecting underage users after they create accounts may leave gaps, while stricter identity checks can introduce privacy and data-security risks. The legal question is not simply whether under-16s remain on a platform. It is whether the company took adequate measures to prevent that access. Internal records could become crucial to establishing the answer. What this means for users. Australian teenagers could face more account suspensions and stricter age checks if platforms strengthen enforcement in response to legal pressure. Adults may also encounter additional verification requests as companies attempt to distinguish eligible users from children. Depending on the methods adopted, that could mean more requests for identification or biometric age estimation, raising concerns about how sensitive information is collected, stored and protected. Users should pay attention to what information a platform requests and how it explains its verification process. Stronger age checks may help enforce the ban, but they do not automatically guarantee that personal data will be handled securely. What's hot at TechRepublic. Australia's legal battle could shape future age checks. If the government proceeds with legal action, the cases could help clarify what courts consider reasonable efforts to keep under-16s off restricted platforms. The legal question is not simply whether children can still access these services, but whether companies took adequate steps to prevent them from maintaining accounts. Internal records documenting age-verification methods, enforcement decisions, and known weaknesses could become important evidence in determining compliance. The outcome may also influence how other countries approach social media age restrictions. However, even successful enforcement would not necessarily establish a universal age-verification standard, as platforms could face different assessments based on their technologies and compliance efforts. For regulators and technology companies, the larger question is whether age restrictions can be enforced effectively without requiring users to surrender more personal information than necessary. Aminu Abdullahi is a B2C and B2B technology and finance writer with more than six years of experience covering enterprise IT, cybersecurity, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, fintech, business software, and emerging technologies. He has written for a wide range of technical and business audiences, from IT professionals and cybersecurity leaders to small business owners, executives, and technology buyers. His work has appeared in publications including: TechRepublic eWEEK Channel Insider Geekflare Enterprise Networking Planet eSecurity Planet CIO Insight Webopedia With a background in computer science, Aminu specializes in translating complex technical subjects into clear, practical, and accessible content. His writing helps readers understand emerging technologies, evaluate business software, strengthen cybersecurity strategies, and make more informed decisions about technology investments. Across his work, Aminu focuses on the real-world impact of technology, connecting technical innovation with business value, operational efficiency, security, and long-term digital transformation.

Australia prepares legal action against five social media platforms over teen ban. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube face potential court proceedings over alleged failures to block under 16s October 21, 2026 MUMBAI: Australia is turning up the pressure on Big Tech, warning that platforms which fail to keep under 16s off social media could soon find themselves on the wrong side of the law. The country is preparing legal action against Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube over alleged failures to enforce its restrictions on children's access, Bloomberg reported, citing Communications Minister Anika Wells. At the centre of the dispute is Australia's requirement for social media platforms to take reasonable measures to prevent children below 16 from holding accounts. Introduced to shield young users from harmful online content, the restrictions have put the responsibility on technology companies to demonstrate that their age-verification and account-control measures are effective. Wells said in an interview in Sydney on Monday that she expected proceedings against all five platforms to move forward. The potential cases would mark a significant escalation in the government's efforts to make social media companies accountable for complying with the restrictions. The country's online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, is building its case after investigating whether the platforms had adequately prevented underage users from maintaining accounts. The investigation, launched in March, examined Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, alongside TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube. An assessment published by the regulator in July found that many children below the permitted age could still access existing accounts or open new ones. The findings pointed to ineffective age-verification measures as a key reason for continued access, raising questions about whether the platforms' safeguards were delivering the intended results. The distinction between having an age restriction on paper and enforcing it in practice is central to the dispute. Platforms may introduce age checks and account controls, but the regulator's findings suggest that such measures have not consistently prevented underage users from accessing services. The planned legal action could therefore test whether the steps taken by the companies meet the standard required under Australian law. Australia has also raised the financial stakes. The maximum penalty for violations has been increased to A$109.2 million, equivalent to $76 million, as the restrictions approach their first anniversary. The potential penalty underscores the scale of the consequences companies could face if they are found to have failed to meet their obligations. Enforcement has also been strengthened through expanded investigative powers for eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The regulator can now require social media companies to provide documents and compel current or former employees to answer questions as part of its investigations. Wells said the additional powers would help the regulator gather the evidence needed to bring the companies before the Federal Court. She added that Inman Grant was using the expanded authority to prepare the case. The powers give the regulator greater scope to examine how platforms implement their age restrictions, including the internal processes and safeguards used to prevent underage access. The evidence gathered could prove important in determining whether the companies took reasonable steps to comply with the law. Although the eSafety Commissioner operates independently, the regulator forms part of Australia's government framework and is accountable to parliament through the communications minister. The distinction is important as the government pushes for stronger enforcement while the regulator develops its case against the platforms. Wells has already criticised the companies' compliance efforts. Speaking at the National Press Club on 15 October, she argued that the problem lay with technology companies failing to follow the law rather than with the legislation itself. Her remarks signalled that the government was not inclined to treat the restrictions as a symbolic measure and intended to pursue companies over alleged shortcomings. The possible proceedings come amid a broader push by Australia to tighten online safety requirements. Last week, the country introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, with Wells introducing the legislation in the House of Representatives on 15 October. The proposed bill would establish stricter safety requirements for digital platforms and give users greater control over their social media feeds. Its proposed scope extends beyond social networks to include gaming services, apps and AI chatbots, bringing a wider range of online services into the safety debate. The legislation also proposes minimum safety standards for online services, reflecting the government's broader approach of placing greater responsibility on technology companies to address risks associated with their products. The proposal to let social media users opt out of algorithmic feeds is another part of that effort, giving users more say over how content is presented to them. Taken together, the potential court cases and the proposed legislation point to a tougher regulatory environment for digital platforms operating in Australia. The government is seeking not only to restrict underage access but also to establish clearer expectations for how online services identify risks and protect users. For Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, the immediate challenge is whether their existing measures can withstand scrutiny from the regulator. The allegations have not, by themselves, established that the companies have breached the law; that question will depend on the evidence and any subsequent legal proceedings. For Australia, the stakes extend beyond the five platforms. The outcome could influence how age restrictions are enforced, what regulators expect from digital services and how far companies must go to demonstrate compliance. The message from Canberra is becoming harder to ignore: setting an age limit is only the first step. If platforms cannot show that they are taking reasonable measures to enforce it, their next encounter with Australia's online safety regime could be in court rather than at the negotiating table.

TikTok's child-safety problem is bigger than its safety settings. TikTok's child-safety problem is no longer only about whether the platform has enough parental controls. It is about what happens when employees identify serious risks, and executives decide how much urgency those warnings deserve. Court records obtained by NPR describe repeated concerns from TikTok employees about risks affecting children. The filings include warnings about minors appearing in sexual content available for purchase, young users finding ways around age restrictions, and children hiding their activity from parents. Discover more Hire SMM Experts Connect Online Find Media Degrees The problem is what the platform knew. The most consequential detail is not that TikTok has faced criticism over youth safety. That is familiar. The sharper issue is the reported gap between internal warnings and executive response. The court documents also reportedly show that TikTok did not conduct surveys to determine users' ages because of concern that the results would have to be shared with the Federal Trade Commission. If accurate, that points to a difficult platform trade-off: measuring the scale of a safety problem can create regulatory exposure, but avoiding the measurement does not make the problem disappear. TikTok disputes the way the claims have been presented. A spokesperson told TechCrunch that the allegations were cherry-picked by trial lawyers and misrepresented the company's record. The company said it has invested billions of dollars in Trust & Safety and introduced more than 50 preset safety, privacy, and security settings for teenagers, including Family Pairing. Safety tools cannot answer a governance question. Those tools matter, but they address the user-facing layer of the problem. They do not settle the question of whether the company acted appropriately when its own employees raised concerns about the platform's design, content, and age controls. That distinction is becoming central to the legal fight facing TikTok and other major platforms. The companies are not only being judged on the features they offer today. They are being challenged over what they knew, when they knew it, and how they responded before public pressure and litigation made youth safety impossible to treat as a product-settings issue. For TikTok, the strategic consequence is uncomfortable: adding more controls may demonstrate investment, but it cannot by itself resolve questions about internal escalation, evidence, or accountability. Updated October 20, 2026 Discover more Advertisers Boost SEO Traffic