Australia’s pioneering social media ban for children under 16 faced its first major constitutional test in the High Court on Tuesday, nearly a year after the sweeping legislation took effect. The legal challenge was brought forward jointly by online platform Reddit and the Australian advocacy group Digital Freedom Project.
The controversial legislation, which was implemented last December, requires major platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Reddit to identify and delete accounts belonging to users under 16, or face substantial financial penalties for non-compliance. In the wake of the law, social media companies were forced to purge millions of accounts.
In its written submission to the court, Reddit challenged both the effectiveness and the safety rationale of the regulatory model. The platform argued that forcing companies to delete underage accounts has inadvertently created new risks by driving young users toward unauthenticated browsing.
“The evidence so far is that the effectiveness of the ban has been limited,” Reddit’s submission stated, adding that young people accessing platforms without an account lose the protection of in-built safety features and are “unable to be protected from exposure to particular harmful content as they previously had been.”
While the Australian government maintained that the restrictions are necessary to shield minors from graphic content and online predators, Reddit contended that the policy lacks a solid scientific foundation. Although acknowledging a growing body of research regarding digital harms, the platform argued that no true “scientific consensus” exists. Supporting this position, a study published in August by a team of Australia-based researchers found little evidence that teenagers had actually stopped using social media following the ban.
The second challenger, the Digital Freedom Project—led by New South Wales politician John Ruddick—attacked the legislation on constitutional grounds. The group argued that prohibiting minors from maintaining accounts infringes upon their fundamental ability to engage in political discourse.
“Social media is an important means of accessing news and engaging in political communication for young Australians, including children under 16,” the advocacy group argued in its written filings, warning that the restrictions also threaten to sever beneficial sources of personal connection, support, and civic participation.
The Digital Freedom Project describes itself as an association of Australians concerned with growing government intervention and digital censorship. Both challengers had previously announced their intention to mount the legal challenge last year.
The legal proceedings unfold as Australian regulators continue to tighten digital rules. The government-backed eSafety Commissioner has defended the restrictions as a vital safeguard against online pressures and risks. Furthermore, authorities have proposed additional opt-out legislation that would compel social media companies to offer users the ability to disable content algorithms.
Simultaneously, Meta and its platforms, Facebook and Instagram, are confronting a separate class-action lawsuit in Australia. Filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs, that litigation alleges that addictive design features built into the platforms caused harm to children and teenagers while they were under 18.
The High Court has not indicated how long it will take to deliberate and issue a ruling on the constitutional challenge.
