The short version
- Reddit and a digital rights group argue the ban is unconstitutional, citing rushed legislation and violations of implied freedom of political communication.
- The government contends that design features on major platforms pose credible risks to youth mental health, justifying the restriction despite lack of fines so far.
- While millions of accounts have been deactivated since implementation, critics note that age verification methods are easily bypassed and some teens remain excluded from civic discourse.
Australia’s landmark prohibition on social media use for children under 16 is facing its most significant legal test yet, as the High Court hears arguments regarding the constitutionality of the sweeping ban. The case centers on whether the government’s rush to enact the legislation resulted in overly broad restrictions that infringe upon fundamental rights, or if the measures are a justified response to credible risks posed by digital platforms to young users.
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project have challenged the law, arguing it violates the implied freedom of political communication protected under the Australian constitution. Perry Herzfeld, counsel for Reddit, told the court that the legislation was passed with minimal public consultation, allowing only 24 hours for submissions before enactment. He characterized the resulting policy as ill-conceived and over-broad, noting that earlier parliamentary inquiries had warned against such blunt instruments in favor of more targeted safety reforms.
The core of the challenge lies in the assertion that banning under-16s from these platforms silences their ability to engage in political discourse. Herzfeld pointed out that while teens can still view content on sites like Reddit without an account, they are barred from posting, commenting, or upvoting, effectively removing their voice from public conversations. He argued that these platforms offer a reach and audience far greater than traditional methods of youth expression, such as street protests or media interviews.
Government lawyer Joanna Davidson SC countered that the ban addresses serious harms associated with platform design features intended to maximize user engagement. She outlined how autoplay videos, algorithmic recommendations, and default notifications create compounding risks for young users, potentially leading to sleep deprivation, mental health issues, and eating disorders. Davidson emphasized that these mechanisms are broadly shared across the ten platforms covered by the ban, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads, and Twitch.
Justice Jacqueline Gleeson expressed skepticism during the hearing regarding the extent to which teenagers under 16 actively engage in political communication online. She noted that the vast majority of minors do not participate in politics during this age bracket, questioning whether the restriction disproportionately impacts a small minority of highly engaged users. This exchange highlights the tension between protecting the general youth population and preserving the rights of those who are already politically active.
The ban came into effect last December, requiring platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent access by anyone under 16. Since its implementation, more than five million accounts believed to belong to minors have been suspended or deactivated across the affected services. Meta alone reported closing approximately half a million accounts in the initial days. However, no company has yet faced the substantial fines of up to A$99 million for non-compliance, despite several investigations launched by the eSafety Commissioner into alleged failures by major tech firms.
Critics argue that the enforcement mechanisms are flawed and easily circumvented. Many users have reported that age verification processes, which may include uploading credit card details, photo IDs, or selfies, can be bypassed with relative ease. Additionally, the ban excludes certain communication tools like WhatsApp and gaming platforms such as Discord and Roblox, creating a fragmented digital landscape where some forms of online interaction remain unrestricted while others are heavily policed.
The original plaintiffs in the case, two teenagers who initially spearheaded the legal challenge, have since withdrawn from their roles. Noah Jones, one of the former plaintiffs, stated outside the court that children deserve to have their voices heard and warned against treating them as mere spectators in their own lives. The Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, continues to argue that the policy amounts to censorship rather than protection.
As the High Court deliberates, the outcome could set a precedent for how governments balance child safety with digital rights in an increasingly connected world. Reddit has suggested alternative measures, such as digital duty of care legislation, limits on push notifications, or parental control requirements, arguing these would be more effective and less restrictive than a blanket ban. The government maintains that the current approach is necessary to defend children from harm in an era where tech platforms wield significant influence over societal norms.
The hearing continues with further arguments expected from both sides. Communications Minister Anika Wells has framed the issue as a fundamental defense of Australian democracy, asserting that society must determine what level of risk from technology is acceptable. The decision will not only impact millions of young Australians but also signal to other nations considering similar legislative actions regarding youth access to social media.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC World↗Australia's social media ban 'ill thought out', High Court told in legal challenge
- The Guardian World↗Australia’s social media ban ‘ill-thought-out’, Reddit argues in high court challenge
