Canada’s Under-16 Social Media Ban Takes a Flexible Approach Compared to Australia’s Hard Line
Canada is moving forward with legislation that would ban children under 16 from using social media, but unlike Australia’s blanket prohibition, the Canadian framework leaves the door open for exemptions if platforms can prove they have made their services inherently safe for young users.
The social media ban is part of the federal government’s broader online tort law. Government officials have described the strategy as a “carrot and stick” approach, designed to incentivize platforms to fundamentally improve their designs and better protect children over the long term, particularly when those children eventually return to the services.
Christopher Dietzel, a postdoctoral researcher in sociology at Western University and associate professor of communication studies at Concordia University, said the Canadian bill strikes a middle ground between competing approaches.
“They’ve sort of moved between these two worlds,” Dietzel said in an interview. “I actually think this bill is better than what has been put forward in Australia because it recognizes that while these services currently promote harm, there would be exceptions if the services demonstrate that they have reached the threshold where they are inherently safe.”
Exemptions Will Require Meeting Strict Protective Standards
These potential exemptions would be granted by a future Digital Security Commission, which Culture Minister Marc Miller said will come into force 18 months after the law is passed. The “appropriate protective measures” that platforms must meet are to be determined by the Privy Council, which includes cabinet members and other officials. The Commission would then use those rules to evaluate whether a company qualifies for an exemption.
During a technical briefing on the bill, administration officials noted that this timeline means there will be a period during which none of the proposed social media services should be available to children under 16. “It will take some time before the first exemption can be granted,” officials said.
Experts Say the Ban Is Not the Only Solution
Heidi Tworek, a professor of history and public policy at the University of British Columbia and a member of the expert advisory group consulted on the bill, said the legislation recognizes that a ban alone is not sufficient to protect children from online harm. This perspective has been echoed by young people’s mental health experts and organizations that have advocated for stricter online safety measures.
“You can look at it as both a carrot and also make sure that the platforms really fundamentally improve their services,” Tworek said. She added that the bill acknowledges social media can offer some potential benefits for young people, including social and educational exposure, depending on the child.
However, experts caution that the success of the exemption framework will hinge on setting an appropriate protection threshold. The legislation outlines a “child protection duty” for social media and artificial intelligence platforms, requiring them to incorporate “age-appropriate designs” into their systems. These could include content warnings, safe search settings for children, and measures to reduce addictive behavior such as endless scrolling.
“The key here is to really make sure that you have smart experts on board who define very clearly what those expectations are,” Tworek said regarding the exemption process.
Platforms Point to Existing Child Safety Measures
Social media companies such as Meta and TikTok say they have already introduced significant protections for younger users in recent years. Instagram’s youth accounts for users under 16 feature default settings that prevent teens from receiving messages from people they are not connected to and minimize exposure to sensitive content, including posts depicting violence or encouraging cosmetic procedures.
TikTok restricts who can follow users ages 13 to 17 and who can view their videos and read their bios. Teen accounts on the platform cannot host live content, send or receive virtual gifts, or buy or sell products on TikTok Shop. The app also enforces a default screen time limit of 60 minutes for teens and disables push notifications at night.
A TikTok spokesperson said the company shares the Government of Canada’s goal for safe online experiences for youth and has expressed its willingness to work on further improvements. “Investing in the latest technologies to improve platform security is our ongoing priority and we look forward to working constructively with the government on this important issue,” the spokesperson said.
Enforcement of Age Limits Remains Uncertain
Until an exemption framework is established, there is significant uncertainty about how and by whom the age restrictions will be enforced. Tech companies have long debated whether social media platforms themselves or app store providers such as Apple and Google should be responsible for verifying users’ age.
In a blog post published as Miller introduced the online harms bill, Meta’s head of global security, Antigone Davis, argued against age-based social media bans and said the most effective place to verify age and obtain parental consent is the App Store. “Apple and Google already collect age information when a parent sets up their teen’s phone, and they already have systems in place to obtain parental consent before teens can make purchases,” Davis wrote. “We are simply asking that this same mechanism be extended to all app downloads.”
A Meta spokesperson said the company is still reviewing the bill but reiterated its preference for age restrictions through app stores. “Social media bans are counterproductive, but we are encouraged that the government appears to recognize that online services that provide sufficient protection for teenagers, as we have done with Teen Accounts and for Teen Conversations with AIs, provide real value for young people,” the company said in a statement.
Apple Introduces New Child Safety Features
Earlier this week, Apple introduced new features for its children’s accounts, allowing parents to restrict access to adult websites and set age-based restrictions for the App Store. Child accounts are required for children under 13 and are available for children 18 and under. Apple CEO Tim Cook attributed the move in part to Australia’s social media ban.
However, experts point out that children can also access social media platforms via desktop internet browsers without going through an app store, raising questions about the effectiveness of app-store-based verification alone.
Platforms Will Bear Responsibility for Age Verification
Dietzel noted that the Canadian bill makes it clear that social media platforms themselves will be responsible for enforcing age restrictions, not app store providers. Miller acknowledged to reporters that there could be “some back and forth” over how the ban will be enforced, especially as the bill moves through the legislative process and social media companies weigh in.
“I would expect them to try to shirk that responsibility,” Dietzel said. “But I think giving them responsibility is the right approach.”
Tworek added that while the bill aims to address privacy concerns raised by age verification measures, more transparency is needed to ensure those protections are adequate. The legislation stipulates that any age verification or estimation measures used by companies must only use personal data for those purposes, that the data must be destroyed once age has been verified, and that the measures must be “effective.”
“It’s one of those issues where the devil is in the details, because what do we mean by effective and how do we measure that,” Tworek said. “Are we going to have an enforcement system that ensures that these data and privacy protections are implemented? These are questions that the regulator should be thinking about. But if it’s going to take 18 months establishing the commission… what happens in that time?”
