Australia's world-first ban on social media for under-16s faced its most significant legal challenge yet on Tuesday, as the country's High Court in Canberra began hearing arguments that the landmark law is unconstitutional and has failed to achieve its stated aims — nearly a year after it took effect [1].
The challenge was brought jointly by online platform Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, an Australian advocacy group led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick [1]. The two parties filed their cases separately before the ban came into force on 10 December last year, but their arguments converged in the courtroom on the same core claim: that the law breaches the implied freedom of political communication enshrined in Australia's constitution [2].
What the Challengers Argue
Inside the courtroom, Reddit's lawyer Perry Herzfeld described the legislation as "ill thought out," telling the full bench of the High Court that the ban contradicted the advice of Australia's own online safety regulator and was rushed through without genuine public consultation — with affected parties given just 24 hours to make submissions [2].
Reddit's written submission argued that the ban carries a counterintuitive danger. Because registered accounts come with built-in safety features, forcing young people off platforms may actually leave them more exposed: "Young people using other platforms without an account are also unable to be protected from exposure to particular harmful content as they previously had been," the submission stated [1]. The company also challenged the scientific basis for the policy, arguing there is no "scientific consensus" on the harms of social media — a claim that sits alongside a study published in August by Australia-based researchers finding little evidence that teenagers have actually stopped using social media since the ban took effect [1].
The Digital Freedom Project framed its objection in explicitly political terms. "Social media is an important means of accessing news and engaging in political communication for young Australians, including children under 16," the group argued in written submissions, adding that the restriction "risks removing beneficial sources of connection, support and participation" [1].
Outside the court, Ruddick told reporters the policy amounted to "censorship" [2]. Two teenagers, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, who had originally spearheaded the case, have since withdrawn as plaintiffs without publicly stating their reasons. Jones nonetheless appeared outside the court and told reporters: "If the children aren't collaborating and sharing their own views, then they're just spectators in their own world" [2].
Reddit's chief communications officer Adam Collins struck a conciliatory tone while maintaining the legal challenge, saying the company shared Australia's goal of protecting young people online "but there are better and more effective ways" than a blanket ban, and pledging to continue complying with the law while the case proceeds [2].
The Government's Defence
Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the law forcefully outside the court, framing the case in sweeping terms. "We are here to defend a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy, which is an Australian's right, and particularly an Australian child's right, to be free from harm," she said, characterising the legal challenge as a "sustained ideological attack" [2].
Inside the courtroom, government lawyer Joanna Davidson SC began laying out the case for why the government believes social media causes harm to children, with her presentation set to continue on Wednesday [2].
How the Ban Works — and How It Has Fared
Under the law, ten platforms — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads and Twitch — must take "reasonable steps" to prevent anyone under 16 from accessing their services [2]. Platforms face fines of up to A$99 million (approximately US$70 million) for serious or repeated breaches [2]. WhatsApp, gaming platforms such as Roblox and Discord, and educational tools including YouTube Kids and Google Classroom were excluded from the ban [2].
Despite the scale of the legislation, enforcement has been uneven. No platform has been fined since the ban began, though the eSafety Commissioner has launched investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube [2]. In the first days of the ban, Meta reported closing approximately half a million accounts across its platforms [2]. Social media companies were broadly required to identify and delete accounts belonging to underage users, with the platforms themselves bearing responsibility for compliance [1].
Yet many young people reported being able to circumvent the age-verification measures — which included uploading credit card details, photo IDs or selfies — with relative ease [2]. Reddit's submission noted that the effectiveness of the ban "has been limited" [1], a conclusion broadly consistent with the August research finding that teen usage patterns have not significantly shifted.
Broader Context
The High Court hearing arrives amid a wider push by the Australian government to tighten regulation of the digital environment for young people. The government has also proposed opt-out laws that would require social media companies to give users the ability to disable algorithmic content recommendations [1]. Separately, Meta is facing a class action lawsuit in Australia alleging that addictive design features in Facebook and Instagram harmed eight plaintiffs while they were under 18 [1].
Australia's ban has drawn international attention as a potential model. Greece has joined a growing list of countries exploring similar restrictions [1], while the legal and policy debate over how — or whether — to limit children's access to social media continues to intensify globally.
It remains unclear how long the High Court will take to deliver its ruling [1]. The outcome could either entrench Australia's approach as a durable legal framework or force a significant legislative rethink — with implications for governments worldwide watching the case closely.
What to Watch Next
Government lawyer Joanna Davidson SC is due to continue presenting the case for the ban on Wednesday [2]. Beyond the immediate hearing, observers will be tracking whether the eSafety Commissioner issues any fines against non-compliant platforms, whether the proposed algorithm opt-out laws advance through parliament, and how the High Court ultimately weighs the tension between child protection and constitutional free-expression rights.
