Explanatory Statement
Issued by the Authority of the Minister for Communications
Online Safety Act 2021
Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026
Authority
The Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026 (the Rules) are made by the Minister for Communications (the Minister) under the Online Safety Act 2021 (the Act).
Paragraph 240(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters required or permitted by the Act to be prescribed by legislative rules.
Subparagraph 63C(1)(a)(iv) of the Act provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, set other conditions that an electronic service must satisfy to meet the definition of an ‘age-restricted social media platform’.
Purpose and operation
Section 63D of the Act requires age-restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 years from having accounts.
Section 63C of the Act defines an age‑restricted social media platform as an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
- the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users;
- the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users;
- the service allows end‑users to post material on the service; and
- such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules.
The Rules amend the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 (the 2025 Rules) to include additional conditions a service must satisfy to be an age-restricted social media platform.
The Rules are a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 and are subject to the default sunsetting requirements and disallowance.
Details of the instrument are set out in Attachment A.
Background
In December 2024, the Act was amended to require providers of certain social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from having an account on the platforms. This landmark reform, which came into effect on 10 December 2025, reflects Australians’ expectations for a strong regulatory response to addressing online harms experienced by children and young people on these services.
While the definition of age-restricted social media platforms casts a wide net, flexibility to reduce the scope or further target the definition is available through the making of legislative rules by the Minister. In part, this is to ensure that users under the minimum age retain access to platforms that predominately provide beneficial experiences, such as those that are grounded in connection, education, health and support. [1]
To that end, on 29 July 2025, the Minister made the 2025 Rules, under paragraph 63C(1)(b) of the Act, which excludes certain types of services from the minimum age obligation, including those that are primarily for the purposes of messaging, online gaming, professional networking and development, and education and health support.
In addition, the Rules, which are made under paragraph 63C(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, update the 2025 Rules to set out a further condition that must be met by a service to fall within the definition of an age-restricted social media platform.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the definition of ‘age-restricted social media platform’, and therefore the obligation under section 63D of the Act, is more clearly targeted at those services that link a person having an account with the service to certain features of the service — recommender systems, endless feed systems, feedback features and time-limited content. Research indicates that services with those particular features pose, or may pose, risks of harm to children.
The Rules also mean that if a service does not have a recommender system (that uses account information), and does not allow logged-in users to access endless feeds, feedback features or time-limited content, it will not be required to comply with s 63D of the Act. In doing so, the Rules further target the social media minimum age towards platforms that are purposefully designed to maintain persistent engagement.
The effect of this is to explicitly tie the minimum age obligation to services that enable features that are associated with an increased risk of harm to young people, such as algorithmically tailored content, endless feeds, and features that reward or incentivise engagement with the platform.
Review
The social media landscape, and digital technology more broadly, is fast moving and constantly evolving. A rapidly changing environment can mean that regulatory settings can quickly become outdated and need to be adapted. The Government will continue to monitor the effects of the law and will not hesitate to calibrate regulatory settings where needed.
In addition, section 239B of the Act requires a review of the social media minimum age framework within 2 years of effective commencement (10 December 2027). The review will consider the effectiveness and impacts of the Rules, against the broader objectives of the framework.
Commencement
The Rules commence on the day after they are registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Consultation
These Rules are informed by feedback and advice received in the course of developing the 2025 Rules.
Between February and March 2025, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (the department) undertook extensive stakeholder consultation on the 2025 Rules. Feedback was received from 104 stakeholders including industry, young Australians, parents and carers, mental health organisations, civil society, legal experts and child-development experts.
While feedback on the draft 2025 Rules was mixed, a key theme raised by stakeholders was support for a ‘safety-by-design’ approach, whereby the scope of regulatory capture would be targeted at services employing harmful design features.
Prior to making the 2025 Rules, the Minister also sought formal advice from the eSafety Commissioner. In line with feedback from the targeted consultation, the Commissioner recommended the Government give consideration to addressing features and functionality associated with harm. The Commissioner highlighted certain design choices that are associated with excessive use, encourage harmful engagement that is detrimental to health, or amplify or exacerbate content and contact-related harms.
Impact Analysis
The Office of Impact Analysis (OIA) has been consulted in relation to the Rules and an Impact Analysis is not required, as this rule does not create any additional impact beyond what has already been assessed in the Impact Analysis for the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. OIA reference number: OIA24-08210.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
The Rules are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared under Section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. A full statement of compatibility is set out at Attachment B.
Attachment A
Details of the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026
Section 1 – Name
This section provides that the name of the instrument is the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026.
Section 2 – Commencement
This section provides for the instrument to commence on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Section 3 – Authority
This section provides that the instrument is made under the Online Safety Act 2021 (the Act).
Section 4 – Schedules
This section provides that each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect according to its terms.
Schedule 1 – Amendments
Item 1 – Before section 5
Item 1 amends the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 (the 2025 Rules) to insert new section 4A, which specifies a further condition a service must satisfy to be an ‘age-restricted social media platform’, within paragraph 63C(1)(a) of the Act.
Subsection (1): Other condition
Subsection 4A(1) provides that for a service to be an age-restricted social media platform, the service must have either or both of: (a) a ‘recommender feature’, or (b) a ‘logged-in feature’.
In considering whether or not a service has a recommender or logged-in feature, it is irrelevant whether that feature is disabled as a default setting, or is able to be disabled by an end-user. The mere availability of the feature on a service, and its accessibility to end-users, would be sufficient for the purposes of subsection 4A(1).
Subsection (2): Recommender feature
Subsection 4A(2) provides that a service has a recommender feature if the service can select and display material to an end-user, having reference to information associated with the end-user’s account.
Recommender systems (also known as content curation systems) play an important role in determining the content that an end-user is exposed to while using a social media platform. These systems are designed to personalise and optimise engagement with the service. Examples of the result of a recommender feature may include ‘for you’, ‘explore’, and ‘discover’ feeds.
The kinds of information that social media platforms input into their recommender systems can range from personal characteristics, such as age, gender identity, race and geographic location, to details about a person’s engagement with content on the service. This includes the types of content the end-user prefers to view, based on factors such as search history and time spent viewing certain material. [2]
Research indicates that this type of feature has been identified as contributing to the proliferation of harmful content on social media services, which can significantly impact the health of young people and encourage risky health behaviours. [3] Of particular concern is content that promotes psychologically harmful ideas, maladaptive behaviours or behaviours such as self-harm, suicide and disordered eating. Exposure to this content has been associated with a range of negative impacts to health, including higher rates of depression and anxiety [4], engagement in similar or more severe self-harm behaviours, [5] a link to suicide attempts, [6] poorer self-esteem, [7] body image concerns [8] and other factors that may increase the risk of disordered eating. [9]
Recommender systems can be designed to operate without information associated with a user’s account (for example, they may present information based on what is popular on the service or in a particular location). However, by using information associated with an end-user’s account, an electronic service can provide curated and highly personalised material that is designed to be extremely motivating and engaging. While recommender features can help people discover relevant content aligned with their interests, they can also contribute to end-users – particularly children and young people – finding it hard to stop using the service. [10]
Subsection (3): Logged-in features
Paragraph 4A(3) provides that a service has a logged-in feature if it has one or more of an ‘endless-feed feature’, a ‘feedback feature’ or a ‘time-limited feature’, and the service does not enable an end-user to access, or be exposed to, at least one such feature unless they are using the service with an account.
The effect of this paragraph is that a service will meet the new condition if, for example, it has a feedback feature that is only available to or present for a user if the user is logged-in to their account. The service will meet the condition in those circumstances, regardless of whether it also has an endless-feed feature or a time-limited feature (and regardless of whether those other features can be accessed while both logged-in and logged-out).
Subsection (4): Endless-feed feature
Paragraph 4A(4) provides that a service has an endless-feed feature if the service can display material to an end-user in a feed of material that has no end-point. However, it will also have that feature if it displays material in a feed of material that has an end-point, but to which additional material is added when that end-point is reached; or at time intervals; or in response to the end-user’s input.
An endless feed (sometimes referred to as ‘endless scroll’ or ‘infinite scroll’) is designed to enable seamless and continuous consumption of content. Content is automatically and continuously loaded as the end-user scrolls, swipes, flicks, or is otherwise prompted. Endless-feed features are designed to significantly reduce the friction for the user, [11] and make it difficult for them to monitor and manage their usage. [12] Endless scroll is particularly risky for younger users, as it may contribute to unintentional, unwanted or excessive use. [13]
Subsection (5): Feedback feature
Subsection 4A(5) provides that a service has a feedback feature if the service can display information to an end-user about the extent to which other end-users have viewed or engaged with material posted by the end-user, or the extent to which other end-users have opted to receive notifications about the end-user’s account or material posted by the end-user.
The types of information displayed to an end-user include, but are not limited to, approval or disapproval (‘likes’, ‘upvotes’), view counts, and reaction icons. Feedback features are often intentionally simplistic and at the forefront of posted material. They are designed to give quick, low-effort feedback. While this can be beneficial for monitoring reach and reception of content, it can also become a central part of how end-users interpret popularity or acceptance of posts. Reactions reinforce the addictive nature of false reward and temporary fulfilment due to correlation with the greater number of reactions on an end-user’s posts.
These quantifiable metrics may form an important feedback point for adolescents of peer approval, status, and acceptance. [14] These have been identified as having the potential to encourage or normalise risky behaviours, [15] foster upward social comparisons and rumination [16] [17], and contribute to feelings of exclusion or unpopularity. [18] Despite the research (including, in some cases, research initiated by social media platforms themselves), the largest platforms continue to feature quantifiable metrics prominently to their users.
Subsection (6): Time-limited feature
Subsection 4A(6) provides that a service has a time-limited feature if it enables an end-user to view material on the service only within a limited period from when the material has been posted. This is sometimes referred to ‘ephemeral content’.
Such features can create a sense of urgency or ‘fear of missing out’ for end-users, prompting them to interact with the service. [19] This could include to view a friend’s ‘story’ before it disappears, or reading another user’s message in a chat before it expires. Ephemeral content can foster the notion that without regular engagement with the service, a person might miss out on critical social information for connecting with others, which can enhance persistent checking behaviours and contribute to extended unwanted engagement. [20] [21]
Attachment B
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026
The Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026 (the Rules) are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview of the rules
Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021 (the Act) establishes the social media minimum age framework, which requires ‘age-restricted social media platforms’ to take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 years from having accounts.
Section 63D of the Act defines an ‘age‑restricted social media platform’ as an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
- the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users;
- the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users;
- the service allows end‑users to post material on the service; and
- such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules.
The Rules specify further conditions that must be met for an electronic service to be considered an age-restricted social media platform.
Namely, a platform is in scope of the definition if it has a recommender feature and/or a logged-in feature. A service has a logged-in feature if the service has one or more of the following features: an endless-feed feature, a feedback feature, a time limited feature and is included if, additionally, the service does not enable an end-user to access, or exposure to, at least one such feature unless the end-user is using the service with an account. There is strong evidence linking such features with poor mental health and psychosocial outcomes amongst children and young people.
Human rights implications
The Rules engage the following rights:
- The principle that the best interests of a child shall be a primary consideration in actions concerning children in Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC).
- The right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities and to participate freely in cultural and artistic life in Article 31 of the CRC.
- The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, enshrined in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
- The right to freedom of opinion and expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), also referred to in Articles 12 and 13 of the CRC.
Principle that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration
Article 3(1) of the CRC provides that in all actions which concern children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The principle requires legislative, administrative and judicial bodies to take active measures to protect children’s rights, promote their wellbeing and consider how children’s rights and interests are or will be affected by their decisions and actions.
The Rules promote this right by identifying and addressing a range of design features employed by platforms to encourage user engagement and increase time spent on platforms. These features are particularly effective on children, who are generally more vulnerable to their associated harms, including addiction, social isolation, sleep interference, poor mental and physical health (including unhealthy social comparisons and negative body image), low life satisfaction and exposure to inappropriate and harmful content. By restricting access to these features for young people under the age of 16, the Rules prioritise the wellbeing and overall development of children.
Right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities and to participate freely in cultural and artistic life
Article 31 of the CRC recognises the right of children to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities, and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. States should support appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity. Importantly, Article 31 provides that the right of engagement in recreational activities should be appropriate to the age of the child. The Rules maintain opportunities for children and young people to connect with each other, by providing access to services that pose lower risks of online harm.
Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
Article 12(1) of the ICESCR recognises the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 12(2d) provides the right to the creation of conditions which would assure access to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
This Statement has already addressed the heightened risk of harm to children and young people in the course of engaging with certain design features commonly employed by platforms. The purpose of these Rules is to limit the exposure of children to services with those particular features that pose, or may pose, risks of harm to them, whilst allowing children and young people to maintain access to less harmful digital services that promote connection without exploiting the vulnerabilities of young users.
Right to freedom of opinion and expression
Article 19(1) of the ICCPR provides that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and Article 12(1) of the CRC provides that a child who is capable of forming his or her own views has the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child with the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Article 19(2) of the ICCPR and Article 13(1) of the CRC provide that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice.
Article 19(3) of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions. Any permissible limitation on the right to freedom of expression must be necessary for the respect of the rights of others, or for the protection of national security, public order or public health or morals. Furthermore, such restrictions must be prescribed by law, reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective.
Article 13(2) of the CRC also provides that the right to freedom of expression of a child may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, or of public order, or of public health or morals.
A detailed analysis of the impacts of the social media minimum age on the right to freedom of expression is included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. Limitations on the right to freedom of expression is necessary to achieve the law’s legitimate objective in promoting the best interests of the child, including through promotion of the right to security of the person, the right not to be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy and to unlawful attacks on one’s honour or reputation, and the right to protection from exploitation. Consistent with that, these Rules have the effect of further targeting the social media minimum age towards platforms that are purposefully designed to maintain persistent engagement (and therefore pose higher risks of harm).
Conclusion
The Rules are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2022, as they promote the protection of human rights, particularly in consideration of the best interests of the child. This includes the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
Any interference with human rights occasioned by the Rules is in pursuit of a legitimate objective. To the extent that it may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate aims of the social media minimum age framework.
[1] See Explanatory Memorandum, Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
[2] Smitha Milli et al, ‘Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media’ (2025) 4(3) PNAS Nexus.
[3] Ofcom, Protecting children from harms online (2024) <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/284469-consultation-protecting-children-from-harms-online/associated-documents/vol3-causes-impacts-of-harms-to-children.pdf>
[4] Jasleen Chhabra et al, ‘Social Media and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review of Platform and Policy Recommendations’ (2025) 27 Journal of Medical Internet Research.
[5] Carla Moss et al, ‘Assessing the Impact of Instagram Use and Deliberate Self-Harm in Adolescents: A Scoping Review’ (2023) 32(1) International Journal of Mental Health Nursing.
[6] Jean Twenge et al, ‘Media Use Is Linked to Lower Psychological Well-Being: Evidence from Three Datasets’ (2019) 18(4) Psychiatric Quarterly.
[7] Lucrezia Piccerillo et al, ‘Adolescent Social Media Use and Emotional Intelligence: A Systematic Review’ (2025) 10 Adolescent Research Review.
[8] Yvonne Kelly et al, ‘Social Media Use and Adolescent Mental Health: Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study’ (2019) 3(9) EClinical Medicine.
[9] Arianna Sala et al, ‘Social Media Use and adolescents’ mental health and well-being: An umbrella review’ (2024) 14 Computers in Human Behavior Reports.
[10] American Psychological Association, Potential risks of content, features, and functions: A closer look at the science behind how social media affects youth (2024) <https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/psychological-science-behind-youth-social-media.pdf>
[11] Christian Montag et al, ‘Addictive Features of Social Media/Messenger Platforms and Freemium Games against the Background of Psychological and Economic Theories’ (2019) 16(14) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
[12] American Psychological Association, Potential risks of content, features, and functions: A closer look at the science behind how social media affects youth (2024) <https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/psychological-science-behind-youth-social-media.pdf>
[13] American Psychological Association, APA recommendations for healthy teen video viewing (2024) <https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/apa-adolescent-video-consumption-recommendations.pdf>
[14] Jacqueline Nesi et al, ‘In search of likes: Longitudinal associations between adolescents’ digital status seeking and health-risk behaviors’ (2029) 48(5) Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.
[15] Mariya Stoilova et al, ‘The impact of digital experiences on adolescents with mental health vulnerabilities: A multimethod pilot study’ (2021) London School of Economics and Political Science and King’s College London <https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/112931/3/Stoilova_et_al_2021_Mental_health_digital_technologies_report.pdf>
[16] Anne Maheux et al, ‘Annual Research Review: Adolescent social media use is not a monolith: toward the study of specific social media components and individual differences’ (2024) 66(4) Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines.
[17] Arianna Sala et al, ‘Social Media Use and adolescents' mental health and well-being: An umbrella review’ (2024) 14 Computers in Human Behavior Reports.
[18] Amy Orben et al, ‘Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability’ (2024) 3(6) Nature Reviews Psychology.
[19] Kuan-Ju Chen et al, ‘Unlocking the power of ephemeral content: The roles of motivations, gratification, need for closure, and engagement’ (2019) 97 Computers in Human Behavior.
[20] Christina van Essen et al, ‘Snapchat streaks—How are these forms of gamified interactions associated with problematic smartphone use and fear of missing out among early adolescents?’ (2023) 11 Telematics and Informatics Reports.
[21] Anne Maheux et al, ‘Annual Research Review: Adolescent social media use is not a monolith: toward the study of specific social media components and individual differences’ (2024) 66(4) Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines.