News · eGov
Reddit and advocacy group Digital Freedom Project have taken Australia's under-16 social media ban to the High Court, arguing it is unconstitutional and ineffective nearly one year after it came into force.
✦ AI SUMMARY 30-second read
- Reddit argues the ban is hard to enforce and lacks a scientific evidence base, warning deleted accounts leave young users with fewer safety protections.
- Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales politician John Ruddick, contends the law unconstitutionally restricts teenagers' access to political discourse.
- A separate class action lawsuit against Meta over allegedly addictive design features harmful to children is also before Australian courts.
Why it matters: The ruling could set a global precedent on whether governments can lawfully restrict minors' access to social media platforms.
This summary was generated by AI. Editors may review and update it.
Australia's High Court is hearing a legal challenge to the country's ban on social media use by those under the age of 16, with online platform Reddit and advocacy group Digital Freedom Project both contesting its validity. The challenge was brought on Tuesday, almost a year after the ban took effect last December.
The law requires social media companies to identify and remove the accounts of underage users, with significant financial penalties for non-compliance. Platforms covered by the restriction include Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit.
What was argued in court
In its written submission, Reddit raised concerns about the practicality of enforcement and the absence of a scientific consensus on the harms of social media. It argued that deleting registered accounts was counterproductive, since those accounts carried built-in safety features that protected younger users.
Reddit's submission noted that content on many platforms remains accessible without an account, meaning young people who lose their accounts are no longer shielded from harmful material. "The evidence so far is that the effectiveness of the ban has been limited," the submission stated.
Digital Freedom Project argued the ban is unconstitutional because it curtails teenagers' participation in political communication. "Social media is an important means of accessing news and engaging in political communication for young Australians, including children under 16," the group said in its written submissions, adding that the restriction also removes beneficial sources of connection and support.
Background
Australia introduced the under-16 social media ban to shield young users from graphic content and online predators, a rationale the government has consistently maintained. The eSafety Commissioner has framed the broader package of online restrictions as a response to the pressures and risks young people face when logged in to social media.
A study published in August by a team of Australia-based researchers found little evidence that teenagers had stopped using social media since the ban came into force. Both Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project had separately signalled their intention to mount a legal challenge last year.
Wider regulatory landscape
Beyond the High Court case, the Australian government has proposed opt-out laws that would require social media companies to offer users the ability to disable algorithmic content feeds. Separately, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Meta and its platforms Facebook and Instagram, alleging that addictive design features have caused harm to children and teenagers.
The class action was brought on behalf of eight plaintiffs who claim they suffered harm from Meta while under the age of 18. It was unclear at the time of the High Court hearing how long the bench would take to reach a decision.