Government lawyers told Australia’s High Court on November 4 that the country’s ban on children younger than 16 holding social media accounts is necessary to protect developing brains. As ABC News reports, the court is hearing two constitutional challenges to the law, one from Reddit and one from the rights group Digital Freedom Project.
The ban took effect in December 2025. It requires Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, X, TikTok, YouTube, Kick, Reddit and Twitch to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping an account. Platforms that fail to do so face fines of up to AU$109.2 million (~$76.2M). The seven-judge court began hearing the case on Nov. 3, and a verdict will likely take months.
The Government’s Case
Government lawyer Joanna Davidson continued on Nov. 4 to outline seven risks to children that she argued stem from platform design features: addictive use, adverse sleep effects, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, exacerbation of disordered eating, and intensification of ADHD symptoms.
The Commonwealth argues that platforms motivated by advertising profits prioritize user engagement and retention, and that the rules accompanying the ban are consultative, targeted and able to change over time. It also contends that the implied freedom of political communication applies only to “electors,” meaning people eligible to vote. On that reading, any burden is indirect, modest and justified. Government lawyer Stephen Lloyd told the judges the burden was “indirect in nature and modest in extent.”
Australian State and Territory Attorneys-General have made submissions supporting the Commonwealth, and the South Australian government is joining the federal government in court. South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, whose government has spearheaded social media age restrictions, said the platforms “choose what kids see and when.”
The Challengers’ Case
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are pursuing separate legal actions on the same constitutional ground, and the High Court has joined them into a single special case, per the Associated Press. Both argue the ban places an unreasonable burden on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication by excluding young people from civic engagement.
Reddit’s lawyers say the law deprives young people of the ability to “speak, interact, organize and reach domestic and global audiences quickly and inexpensively.” They add that “the deprivation is profound where it is inflicted on a group that does not have the avenue of the ballot box.” Reddit lawyer Perry Herzfeld called the ban “ill-targeted” and “over broad,” and said Reddit should never have been included on the government’s list of 10 age-restricted platforms. Reddit, which is also suing the minister for communications, is seeking a declaration that it is not an “age-restricted social media platform” under the legislation.
The Digital Freedom Project, led by Libertarian New South Wales MP John Ruddick, is also suing the eSafety Commissioner. The group originally named two 15-year-olds as co-plaintiffs, but they were removed from the case over concerns they could be held personally liable for legal costs if it failed. In written submissions, the group argued there is a “fundamental disconnect” between the law’s intention and its reality. It said many children under 16 have evaded age-assurance technologies and that potentially harmful content remains available without an account. It also argued there were “obvious and compelling alternatives” that would have achieved parliament’s purpose with a lesser burden.
Reddit said it shares the government’s goal of protecting young people online, “but there are better, more effective ways to achieve it than the social media minimum age legislation.” It said it will continue to comply with the law during the challenge, according to Adam Collins, the company’s Chief Communications Officer.
Enforcement Record
Nearly 5 million social media accounts have been blocked on the 10 affected platforms since the ban took effect, according to government data. Australia’s population is 28 million. The government has acknowledged the ban has not been as effective as hoped, because many young children have slipped through age verification technologies. Platforms are not allowed to demand government identification documents because of privacy concerns. In June, the government announced it was considering strengthening the laws behind the ban, with amendments subsequently passed in September 2026.
Monash University Constitutional Law Professor Luke Beck said the government has a strong case. “It’s very clear that the Commonwealth can regulate social media and online spaces,” he said, adding that the case will clarify how far that power extends. He said that even if the government lost, the policy might not be abandoned, because “it may just be a technical breach that can be fixed with some tweaks in the legislation.”
Dragomir is a Serbian freelance blog writer and translator. He is passionate about covering insightful stories and exploring topics such as influencer marketing, the creator economy, technology, business, and cyber fraud.
Government lawyers told Australia’s High Court on November 4 that the country’s ban on children younger than 16 holding social media accounts is necessary to protect developing brains. As ABC News reports, the court is hearing two constitutional challenges to the law, one from Reddit and one from the rights group Digital Freedom Project.
The ban took effect in December 2025. It requires Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, X, TikTok, YouTube, Kick, Reddit and Twitch to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping an account. Platforms that fail to do so face fines of up to AU$109.2 million (~$76.2M). The seven-judge court began hearing the case on Nov. 3, and a verdict will likely take months.
The Government’s Case
Government lawyer Joanna Davidson continued on Nov. 4 to outline seven risks to children that she argued stem from platform design features: addictive use, adverse sleep effects, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, exacerbation of disordered eating, and intensification of ADHD symptoms.
The Commonwealth argues that platforms motivated by advertising profits prioritize user engagement and retention, and that the rules accompanying the ban are consultative, targeted and able to change over time. It also contends that the implied freedom of political communication applies only to “electors,” meaning people eligible to vote. On that reading, any burden is indirect, modest and justified. Government lawyer Stephen Lloyd told the judges the burden was “indirect in nature and modest in extent.”
Australian State and Territory Attorneys-General have made submissions supporting the Commonwealth, and the South Australian government is joining the federal government in court. South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, whose government has spearheaded social media age restrictions, said the platforms “choose what kids see and when.”
The Challengers’ Case
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are pursuing separate legal actions on the same constitutional ground, and the High Court has joined them into a single special case, per the Associated Press. Both argue the ban places an unreasonable burden on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication by excluding young people from civic engagement.
Reddit’s lawyers say the law deprives young people of the ability to “speak, interact, organize and reach domestic and global audiences quickly and inexpensively.” They add that “the deprivation is profound where it is inflicted on a group that does not have the avenue of the ballot box.” Reddit lawyer Perry Herzfeld called the ban “ill-targeted” and “over broad,” and said Reddit should never have been included on the government’s list of 10 age-restricted platforms. Reddit, which is also suing the minister for communications, is seeking a declaration that it is not an “age-restricted social media platform” under the legislation.
The Digital Freedom Project, led by Libertarian New South Wales MP John Ruddick, is also suing the eSafety Commissioner. The group originally named two 15-year-olds as co-plaintiffs, but they were removed from the case over concerns they could be held personally liable for legal costs if it failed. In written submissions, the group argued there is a “fundamental disconnect” between the law’s intention and its reality. It said many children under 16 have evaded age-assurance technologies and that potentially harmful content remains available without an account. It also argued there were “obvious and compelling alternatives” that would have achieved parliament’s purpose with a lesser burden.
Reddit said it shares the government’s goal of protecting young people online, “but there are better, more effective ways to achieve it than the social media minimum age legislation.” It said it will continue to comply with the law during the challenge, according to Adam Collins, the company’s Chief Communications Officer.
Enforcement Record
Nearly 5 million social media accounts have been blocked on the 10 affected platforms since the ban took effect, according to government data. Australia’s population is 28 million. The government has acknowledged the ban has not been as effective as hoped, because many young children have slipped through age verification technologies. Platforms are not allowed to demand government identification documents because of privacy concerns. In June, the government announced it was considering strengthening the laws behind the ban, with amendments subsequently passed in September 2026.
Monash University Constitutional Law Professor Luke Beck said the government has a strong case. “It’s very clear that the Commonwealth can regulate social media and online spaces,” he said, adding that the case will clarify how far that power extends. He said that even if the government lost, the policy might not be abandoned, because “it may just be a technical breach that can be fixed with some tweaks in the legislation.”
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Check Out Our Podcast