“As a result, we are now moving into an enforcement stance. Any enforcement action requires sufficient evidence, which takes time to gather. The evidence must establish [that] the platform has not taken reasonable steps to prevent children aged under 16 from having an account. That means more than simply demonstrating [that] some children do still have accounts. Rather, the evidence must show the platform has not implemented appropriate systems and processes.”

The five platforms of concern are some of the most popular online: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. According to data collected via public reports, legally enforceable information-gathering notices, and the commissioner’s own survey, there are several compliance issues at play.

• ​Prompting children to attempt age assurance even when their declared age has been established.
• ​Enabling under-16s to attempt the same age assurance method multiple times to ultimately obtain a 16+ outcome.
• ​Failing to provide accessible or effective pathways for reporting age-restricted accounts.
• ​Insufficient measures to prevent new under-16 accounts from being created.

Parents are reporting that roughly 70 per cent of children under the age of 16 are still on social media despite the national ban.

Speaking on Channel 7’s Sunrise program today, Communications Minister Anika Wells backed eSafety’s investigations.

“We’ve published the compliance report today because I want parents to know we get it, we know, we’re hearing those same stories that you are experiencing, and we are building that evidence case,” Wells said when asked when fines may be levied against the platforms.

“It is not good enough for big tech to offer kids multiple attempts to get in through photo scanning. It’s not good enough for big tech to say, ‘Do you want to check your age ahead of 10 December coming in?’ And the biggest reason that kids haven’t been thrown off social media platforms, as you see in the compliance report, is because big tech hasn’t even asked their age to begin with.”

Speaking later on Sky News First Edition, Wells added that the ban was sparking an important national conversation regarding social media usage across all age groups.

“We were all having the discussion around what our own use looks like – are we happy with it? Parents taking themselves off social media in solidarity with their under-16s – these are important policy questions for us to have as a country,” Wells said.

“Big tech is a huge and unchangeable part of our future, our kids’ future. AI is here and will govern every single element of our children’s lives – there’s no getting around that. But for us to have a discussion around healthy use of it, and also what big tech owes to us as Australians and what big tech owes to its customers as it seeks to transact business on our shores.”

Dr Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney, said that while the ban was ambitious, "ambition alone is not enough".

"The compliance gaps identified are not accidental. The platforms engineered workarounds into their own age assurance systems, failed to close reporting pathways and allowed repeated attempts to game facial recognition. These gaps reflect the rational commercial behaviour of platforms operating under a law that still leaves substantial discretion in their hands," Dr Nicholls said.

“The eSafety Commissioner has the right enforcement tools, including civil penalties of up to $49.5 million, but enforcement action against five major platforms simultaneously will test the regulator’s resources and resolve in equal measure.”