The Australian Government released an Exposure Draft of the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 for consultation and feedback. This is TikTok Australia's submission in response the Exposure Draft (and associated discussion paper).


4 March 2025

Andrew Irwin
Assistant Secretary
Online Safety, Media and Platforms Division
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts


Dear Andrew,

Thank you for the opportunity to consult further on the Australian Government's Exposure Draft Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 (Rules). We provide the attached formal submission responding to the Discussion Paper and Rules shared with us on 13 February 2025, and we acknowledge that much of this submission seeks to expand upon the position we put forward at our discussion on 18 February 2025.

From the outset, TikTok has sought to work constructively with the Government on its proposed changes to social media laws, including through multiple iterations of these reforms. We agree that keeping young people safe must remain the top priority for platforms, parents, and policymakers. The rising tide of online safety isn't something we'd ever shy away from, and TikTok has a proud record of transparency and proactivity to stand on. Last year, we invested $2 billion USD to keep the TikTok community safe -- and we'll keep putting our money, our technology, and our people behind protecting our users.

We welcomed the Commonwealth's early leadership to ensure a united, national approach to these important issues. We still maintain that a national approach is the best way forward, and the best way to make sure we don't push young people into darker corners of the internet where safety guardrails don't exist at all.

While experts may debate the merits of restricting teens' access to social media, now that Parliament has delivered its verdict, Australians deserve a system that works and industry deserves a level playing field.

For the reasons set out in this submission, we have grave concerns that the Rules, if implemented in their current form, would not work. We are particularly concerned that carving out any major platform by name - in this case, YouTube - from the minimum age obligation would result in a law that is illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted. It would fundamentally undermine and compromise the integrity of the Government's regulatory framework for online safety, stymie fair competition, and fail to safeguard against inevitable and unpredictable product evolution over time.

We strongly urge the Government to reconsider its proposed approach, and to design Rules that are fair, transparent, effective, and consistent for all social media platforms.

Sincerely,

Ella Woods-Joyce
Director of Public Policy
TikTok Australia and New Zealand

Discussion questions – YouTube
4.1. Do you support YouTube being excluded from the minimum age obligation (i.e. young people should be able to have YouTube accounts)?
4.2. Why or why not?
4.3. Are there any unintended consequences of excluding YouTube?

Introduction: A Sweetheart Deal For One Platform is Illogical, Anti-Competitive, and Short-Sighted

TikTok does not support the exclusion of any major platform by name from the minimum age obligation, as currently proposed by the Government in section 6 of the Exposure Draft Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 (Rules).

Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature - while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations - would be illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted.

It is illogical, because YouTube's functions and features - particularly what YouTube itself refers to as its short-form video experience, "Shorts" - are virtually indistinguishable from its peers', and because arguments for YouTube's "unique" educative value are incorrect.

It is anti-competitive, because giving YouTube monopoly access to under-16 users in Australia would undermine competition, stifle innovation, and further entrench Google's market dominance in an already concentrated digital ecosystem.

It is short-sighted, because exempting any single platform by name fails to account for how platforms evolve and change over time.

1. Identical functions and features make a bespoke exemption illogical

Less than 24 months after TikTok's US launch disrupted the social media landscape, dominant players Meta and Google launched copycat features Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts.

Today, TikTok, Reels and Shorts are virtually - and deliberately - indistinguishable in function and user experience (see figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1

The similarity of features within TikTok, YouTube and Instagram underscores the inconsistency of the Government's proposed exemption: it is illogical to restrict two platforms while exempting the third. It would be akin to banning the sale of soft drinks to minors but exempting Coca-Cola.

When YouTube is compared alongside TikTok, there is nothing that justifies the Government's different and punitive treatment of our platform (see figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2


The Government's arguments citing unique educative value do not survive even the most cursory of closer examinations. The Discussion Paper's justification is thin enough to warrant citation in its entirety: 

Based on research undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner, YouTube has consistently ranked as one of the top digital services used by children and young people in Australia. While the platform undoubtedly functions as a source of entertainment and leisure, it is an important source of education and informational content, relied on by children, parents and carers, and educational institutions. This contrasts substantially with other content streaming services, which are predominantly used by young people to view short-form entertainment content. On this basis, the proposed Online Safety Rules exclude YouTube from the minimum age obligation. [Discussion Paper, pp5-6].

There are at least four things wrong with the argument set out above:

  1. The Rules already contain an exemption for "services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the education of end users". If the Government believed its own assertions about YouTube's unique educational value, it would fall under this category and the platform's standalone exemption would be rendered unnecessary.
  2. No evidence is provided in support of the Government's claim that YouTube "contrasts substantially" with other content streaming services, either as a source of "education and informational content", or as one "relied on by children, parents and carers, and educational institutions". In fact, recent analysis by respected tech expert Trevor Long found that TikTok contains roughly 12 times the amount of educational content (measured as a proportion of all content surfaced) as YouTube. This is not to say that YouTube is not an important and useful educational resource for many Australians, including students and educators. It undoubtedly is. But the claim that it is unique in this regard - to an extent that would justify the Government's exemption by name - is clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the educational utility of several other platforms and their respective products.
  3. If the Discussion Paper paragraph cited above is taken at face value, the Government appears to be setting a much easier "educative content" test for one platform than that being set for its competitors. For YouTube, it appears sufficient that the platform is "an important source of education and informational content" to warrant an exemption on a named basis. For "other content streaming services", the fact that these platforms are "predominantly" used to view "short-form entertainment content" justifies their less favourable treatment, holding them to a stricter standard. It would be difficult to conceive of an objective "predominant purpose" test that could be equally applied to TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube and yield different results. This perhaps explains why the Government has not deemed it prudent to undertake such an analysis.
  4. Even if YouTube were not exempt, and supposing it failed to meet the separate education exemption, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent teachers from sharing links to YouTube content - or TikTok or Instagram content - with their students. The Act only prevents underage users from creating accounts, not from accessing content. The Government is yet to explain, or provide any evidence to support, the educative value of account ownership for one particular platform and not others.

Excluding any major platform by name from the minimum age obligation on educative grounds is unsupportable without evidence. What is clear is that the Government has begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence. The results leave much to be desired.

2. Exempting platforms by name is short-sighted and ignores inevitable and unpredictable product evolution

The Rules name "the electronic service known as YouTube", without any mechanism to ensure that the platform continues to meet the rationale for this exemption over time.

If the Government intended to exempt platforms that provide educational functions, a fairer and more appropriate approach would be to create an exemption for a class of services that meet clear, objective criteria. That criteria may apply to YouTube, as well as any other platforms which satisfy it, now or in the future.

Further, if the Government intends to encourage other platforms to feature more educational and informative content, the current standalone exemption fails to achieve this. It provides no mechanism for other platforms to ever fall under the exemption - even if they achieve the same or better standards - and no incentive for them to innovate accordingly.

Exemption rules should not be crafted by reference to a static point in time without considering the inevitable product evolution among platforms. TikTok remains concerned that the Department has cited and relied upon research undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner in 2021 in reaching its conclusion that YouTube is an "important source of education and informational content".

Given this research is now four years old, during which time technology, content creation, and consumer behaviours have evolved significantly, it is inadequate that the Department should rely on such outdated research. For example, the cited report is so old that it predates the Australian launch of YouTube Shorts.

In any case, page 17 of this research indicates that, for young people, "Instagram and TikTok, followed by YouTube, are their preferred platforms, and, currently, messaging will likely reach a wider youth audience on these sites." On that basis, the cited research seems to suggest that platforms like Instagram and TikTok could be more effective sources of information and educational content for young people.

It is difficult to reconcile the research the Government has relied upon and their stated rationale for the proposed exemption.

3. Existing market dominance makes this exemption anti-competitive

TikTok agrees with the findings of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding the concentrated state of Australia's digital economy. As the ACCC Chair has observed, a "handful of the large digital platforms" currently use their entrenched position and substantial market power to enact "broader harms".

Treasury's December 2024 Proposal paper, A new digital competition regime, echoes these concerns, noting "the rise and dominance of large international platforms, their market power and ability to restrict competition, and their central role in facilitating interactions between businesses and consumers, have also created important regulatory challenges”.

The competitive harms described by the ACCC and Treasury are real, significant, and well-documented. As a relative newcomer to the industry, we support the Government's ongoing efforts to rein in the unchecked power of dominant platforms. By contrast, carving out a sweetheart deal for one platform, while subjecting every other platform to stringent compliance obligations, would fundamentally undermine the Government's own digital competition reform efforts. It would make each and every one of the problems identified by the ACCC worse.

To illustrate the dominant position Google-owned YouTube already enjoys, consider the NSW Government's recent survey into social media use, published in September 2024. It found:
- YouTube is the #1 social media platform for people aged 5-9 years old;
- YouTube is the #1 social media platform for people aged 10-12 years old; and
- YouTube is the #1 social media platform for people aged 13-15 years old.

These survey findings are corroborated by the eSafety Commissioner's latest Basic Online Safety Expectations reporting on age assurance, released in February 2025, that measured users by social media platforms and shows that 68% of 8 to 12-year-olds and 73% of 13 to 15-year-olds use YouTube, making it the most popular platform for young people in Australia.

The inevitable consequence of the named exclusion will be to ring-fence a significant competitive advantage in the form of a monopoly over not only users under 16 (as other platforms are required to prevent users under 16 from creating accounts), but also users over 16. This exemption would see YouTube become the go-to platform for individuals that do not wish to undergo age assurance measures that non-exempt platforms will be required to adopt, in accordance with the Act.

Given that YouTube is tightly integrated into Google's broader platform ecosystem, it would be reasonable to expect the company to take advantage of the exclusive access it has been given, including by introducing those same users to its other existing products, or creating new products and features under the YouTube brand in order to further bolster its dominance. This would entrench Alphabet's wider ecosystem advantages that it is already able to leverage at scale.

That Google or any rational economic actor in its position would seek to lobby Government for favourable treatment is comprehensible. That the Government would accede to it, against the warnings of its own competition watchdog, is not.

Conclusion

The Government's standalone, named exemption for only one platform, is irrational and indefensible.

An exclusivity agreement like this will hand one platform unfettered access to every teenager in Australia and provide one platform with an unchecked competitive advantage in the market.

A sweetheart deal for just one platform won't help the Government protect kids online; it will only hurt young Australians in the long run.