Australian Age Assurance Technology Trial: The report is out and the message is clear
When we discuss age assurance or age verification mandates to protect children, we can see that some jurisdictions are pushing forward, and others are adopting a “wait and see” stance. One thing is for sure; age verification and assurance technology is coming and only the implementation itself is up for discussion. The recently released “Age Assurance Technology Trial Final Report” makes it clear that the regulators must only involve themselves in the “why” it needs to be done, while avoiding getting involved in any way in the “how”. This independent report is satisfied that the safety tech sector has stepped up to the plate and is willing and able to provide solutions, adapted to different use cases and satisfying the regulators and users.
The release of this report marks a significant milestone in the global conversation about how societies can protect children online while safeguarding privacy and fairness. Commissioned by the Australian Government and delivered by the Age Check Certification Scheme, the report is not just an assessment of technologies, it is also a vindication of a principle: regulators and lawmakers should determine why protections are needed but not dictate how they must be implemented.
The separation of the roles of policy setting versus technical execution is critical in an era where technology evolves faster than legislation. The report underscores that industry and technology providers are best placed to design, test, and refine solutions, while governments provide the guardrails of purpose, accountability, and enforcement.
The trial assessed a wide range of age assurance methods, from document-based verification to AI-driven age estimation and parental control systems. Across more than 28,800 technical datapoints and 37,000 mystery shopper experiences, the findings were clear:
Feasibility is proven: The technologies needed to implement age assurance are mature and ready for deployment.
No one-size-fits-all: Different contexts require different methods. A child accessing a social media app may be best served by a low-friction age estimation, while access to adult content platforms may require high-assurance ID verification.
Privacy by design is achievable: This is the big one. Contrary to the natural fears of intrusive data collection, many systems demonstrated strong privacy protections, minimising data retention and ensuring that personal information is not repurposed. In a post GDPR world this is not surprising given the special status children’s data gets under that law.
Cultural and demographic inclusivity is critical: The trial tested systems across diverse populations, including Indigenous communities, to ensure fairness and accuracy. A recent episode of the excellent For Techs Sake podcast with Elaine Burke explored these very issues with Benji Foley a researcher in Dublin City University.
Layered validation strengthens trust: Successive validation, where multiple methods are combined, proved to increase accuracy, reduce false positives, and build resilience against fraud.
Industry is innovating rapidly: The age assurance sector is dynamic, attracting significant investment and technical development. The market delivers!
Public appetite is strong: Polling shows nearly 90% of Australians support age assurance measures, especially in the context of widespread youth exposure to harmful online content. I’d wager that it would be the same in Ireland.
These report findings carry global significance. Governments worldwide are at varying degrees of readiness around how to regulate digital spaces where children are routinely exposed to inappropriate or harmful material. The Australian trial demonstrates that solutions exist today, and that they can be rolled out without undermining privacy or freedom of expression.
Perhaps more importantly, the report validates the philosophy that lawmakers should not attempt to prescribe technical solutions. History shows that when governments mandate specific technologies, they risk locking societies into outdated tools. By contrast, when regulators focus on the outcomes, in this case, protecting children, the industry itself is free to compete and innovate on how best to achieve those outcomes. This principle of “why, not how” is echoed in the report’s conclusion: age assurance is feasible, practical, and available today. The role of regulation is to require it, enforce standards, and penalise non-compliance—not to choose winners among competing technologies.
All of this is heading in the right direction. The use of the words “experiment” when discussing children’s use of the internet is not something preceding generations should be proud of. Children need protection in the online world in the same way they do in the offline world.
Remember, if you see any illegal or harmful content online you can report it to Irish Internet Hotline and anything that can be done, will be done.