The Australian government has released the final report of its Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT), concluding that platforms have multiple viable ways to keep under-16s off social media, yet none is flawless and all carry trade-offs in accuracy, equity, and privacy.

Communications Minister Anika Wells hailed the findings, calling them “the latest piece of evidence showing digital platforms have access to technology to better protect young people,” while stressing there is “no one-size-fits-all solution.” Under laws due to take effect December 10, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to stop account creation by under-16s or face penalties up to A$50 million.

Run independently by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme, the trial assessed more than 60 solutions from 48 vendors, including government-ID checks, selfie-based facial age estimation, behavioral inference, layered “successive validation,” and parental consent/control. The verdict: age assurance can be integrated and scaled, but effectiveness varies by context, and careful deployment is essential.

• Document checks were the most accurate, but the report warns about over-collection or retention of sensitive data, including tools built to let authorities retrace verification events, raising breach risks if stored longer than necessary.
• Facial age estimation performed well for adults overall (around 92% accuracy for 18+), but is less reliable in the 2–3-year “grey zone” around age 16, leading to both false positives (admitting minors) and false negatives (blocking 16–17-year-olds). Independent coverage notes higher error rates for women and for people with darker skin tones near the threshold.
• The report endorses layered approaches that escalate from light-touch checks to stronger verification when confidence is low, and states that providers are actively countering spoofing, forgeries, and VPN circumvention. However, no system is “infallible.”

Scholars and civil society groups argue that rolling out age checks at a national scale risks misclassification and privacy harms, especially for users near the cutoff. Lisa M. Given (RMIT) cautioned that 13–14-year-olds could be cleared as 16, while some 16–17-year-olds could be wrongly blocked; she also flags accuracy gaps by gender and skin tone and warns the tech may create a “false sense of security.”

The government says there is “no excuse” for major platforms not to have a combination of age-assurance methods ready by Dec. 10. Platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube will need to show the eSafety regulator reasonable steps or risk fines; industry and privacy advocates counter that tight timelines and unresolved risks could push teens toward less-regulated corners of the internet.

Separate analyses by Reuters and ABC News emphasize the policy’s core tension: the tech works best for adults and clear cases. Still, it is least reliable where it matters most, right around age 16, making back-up checks and strong guardrails on data collection pivotal if Australia’s world-first ban is to hold up in practice.

Key takeaway: Canberra’s message is that age checks are feasible; the AATT shows they can be “private, robust and effective” in many contexts. However, the same record also documents significant accuracy gaps and privacy concerns. Whether the December rollout protects kids without over-blocking or over-collecting data now turns on how platforms layer these tools and how strictly the regulator defines “reasonable steps.”

You can read the full report here.