YouTube’s global chief executive personally lobbied the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, for an exemption from the federal government’s under-16s social media ban, less than 48 hours before Rowland announced the Alphabet-owned company would escape the ban.
On 21 November, when legislation to ban children under 16 from social media services in Australiawas introduced into parliament, Rowland surprised the industry in declaring that YouTube, and services that have “a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need”, would be excluded.
A week prior, Rowland had told radio station 2GB that YouTube would “likely fall within the definition” of services to be banned, but in a sudden policy shift the platform was exempt, baffling rivals Meta, TikTok and Snap. TikTok said YouTube got a “sweetheart deal” from government.
Previously unreleased emails obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws reveal strong lobbying from YouTube attempting to avoid the ban, even invoking the Wiggles to support keeping YouTube available to kids.
The YouTube chief executive, Neal Mohan, emailed Rowland at 5.13pm on 19 November last year, less than two days before the exemption was announced.
Mohan said YouTube was “fundamentally different” to other social platforms for children, given people often watch YouTube on a smart TV rather than on mobile devices. He also argued that he was making the site safer for kids.
“This work is personally and professionally critical to me as both a father of three and leader of YouTube,” he said in the letter. “As CEO, I’ve directed my teams to further invest in ways to ensure our platform is a safe and enriching place for kids and teens.”
Mohan also mentioned to Rowland he had met with YouTube creators the Wiggles. Earlier on the same day, the Wigglesspoke to Sky News criticisingthe potential for YouTube to be banned for children.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
The FoI documents also revealed that, prior to the legislation passing, fellow Alphabet subsidiary Google provided draft amendments to Rowland’s office that would effectively rule out YouTube from the ban. The tech giant’s suggestions were not taken up by the minister’s office. Instead, Rowland opted for a broad definition of what constituted social media in the legislation, with exclusions that could later be applied at the minister’s discretion.
Rowland replied to Mohan’s letter in early December,after the bill was passed. She pledged that “a re-elected Labor government” would “give effect to this definitional exclusion for YouTube video streaming services, including YouTube Kids”.
The exemption means even YouTube’s TikTok-like product Shorts is excluded from the ban, despite TikTok and Instagram’s Reels product facing the ban.
Rowland’s promise came despite draft rules for what services are included or excluded being currently under consultation with industry.
Despite YouTube’s blanket exemption from Rowland, industry sources said correspondence from the minister’s office from early March stated no final decisions would be made before the consultation period concluded.
Sign up toAfternoon Update: Election 2025
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
A spokesperson for the minister said the decision to exclude YouTube was made in November last year and “there has been zero reconsideration or communication to suggest otherwise – despite misleading attempts by TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook to imply that it was”.
A TikTok spokesperson said “these extraordinary documents raise even more questions about the sweetheart deal” between the minister and the global head of YouTube, and questioned why the Wiggles had been consulted before eSafety had been as part of the current process to decide which platforms were excluded.
“It is astounding that the minister met with the Wiggles, but still hasn’t sought the independent advice of the eSafety Commissioner.”
Snap called for YouTube’s exemption to be revisited. A spokesperson said the letters “raise some serious questions about the fairness of this process”.
A spokesperson for Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta said the company had been “disappointed in the process, which has been marked by a lack of transparency and open discourse”. The spokesperson said the YouTube exemption does not make sense.
A preliminary report on the progress of the trial of technology to be used to assure ages on social media is due to government next week – but itwill not be released publicly.
The final report is due in June, and the ban scheduled to come into effect in December.
YouTube declined to comment.