The ban on social media for children under 16 was introduced on December 10,2025. In Australia, the prime minister is pleased with what has been achieved so far. But,”5 million accounts, that sounds like a lot, an average of about 2 accounts per child. But children may still have many more accounts”, Van den Bos promptly notes.
New accounts
Table of Contents
developmental psychologist adn university lecturer at the University of Amsterdam Wouter van den Bos responds to the developments. continues: ”That number, though impressive it sounds, actually says little. We don’t yet know if they have all gotten rid of those accounts.”
According to him, no account is taken of the fact that young people may have created new accounts, with a different age. “Following the ban, we saw other new social media apps emerge and become very popular, and were number one in the app download lists. So we can’t really see if they are now less online”, concludes Van den Bos.
Difficult to control
It is also good to remember that Australian young people who are no longer allowed to have an account still have access to social media, the developmental psychologist points out as a second critical point. “They can watch and scroll on TikTok or YouTube, for example, without an account”, he explains.
“So even if those accounts are gone, they may still be using those apps for hours a day.” It is indeed thus m
“`html
Digital Environments and U.S. Law
The legal landscape surrounding digital environments in the United States is a complex interplay of existing laws adapted for online spaces and new legislation addressing emerging technologies, impacting areas from data privacy to intellectual property and online speech. This article details key legal considerations for individuals and businesses operating within these digital spaces as of January 16, 2026.
Data Privacy Regulations
Data privacy is a central concern in digital environments, and the U.S. employs a sectoral approach, meaning different laws govern different types of data. The Federal trade Commission (FTC) plays a significant role in enforcing privacy policies, even without a single, extensive federal law.
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), enacted in 1998 and updated since, specifically protects the online privacy of children under 13, requiring parental consent for data collection. Several states have enacted more comprehensive privacy laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), granting consumers rights to know, delete, and opt-out of the sale of their personal data. Similar laws exist in Virginia (Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act), Colorado (Colorado Privacy Act), and other states, creating a patchwork of regulations.
Example: In january 2024, the FTC settled with Kochava, a mobile advertising company, for selling location data that could reveal sensitive information about consumers, demonstrating the FTC’s enforcement of data privacy principles.
Intellectual Property Rights Online
protecting intellectual property in digital environments is crucial,and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 is the cornerstone of U.S. law in this area. The DMCA provides a “safe harbor” for online service providers (OSPs) from copyright infringement liability if they meet certain conditions, including implementing a notice-and-takedown procedure.
The DMCA outlines procedures for copyright holders to request the removal of infringing material from websites and platforms. Additionally, trademark law applies to online branding and advertising, preventing the unauthorized use of trademarks in digital spaces. The United States Patent and trademark Office (USPTO) handles trademark registration and enforcement.
Evidence: In 2023, the USPTO reported a record number of trademark applications, reflecting the increasing importance of brand protection in the digital marketplace. Specifically, 93,444 trademark applications were filed.
Online Speech and Section 230
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a pivotal law governing online speech.It generally provides immunity to online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. This protection has been the subject of ongoing debate and legal challenges.
Section 230(c)(1) states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” However, this immunity is not absolute; it does not apply to federal criminal law or intellectual property violations. Recent court cases,such as Gonzalez v. Google (2023), have explored the scope of Section 230’s protection, particularly regarding algorithmic recommendations.
Example: The Supreme Court’s decision in *Gonzalez v. Google* did not fundamentally
