Australia’s High Court began hearing constitutional challenges on Tuesday in Melbourne against the Australia social media ban for under-16s, as American discussion forum Reddit and civil liberties groups argued that the law unlawfully restricts political debate and leaves young users unprotected.
Key points
- Seven High Court judges are hearing two constitutional challenges to the world-first ban on under-16 social media accounts.
- Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project argue the legislation impairs the freedom of political communication implied by the Australian constitution.
- Independent and government research indicates up to 85 percent of teenagers continue to access restricted networks.
- The Commonwealth government has doubled potential non-compliance fines to 99 million Australian dollars as ministers defend the restrictions.
The constitutional challenge in Melbourne
The two-day hearing before the full bench of seven High Court justices brings the federal government into conflict with global technology companies. The contested statute came into effect late last year, barring children younger than 16 from holding accounts across 10 major networks.
The law applies to Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. Digital Freedom Project, a Sydney-based advocacy organisation led by New South Wales state politician John Ruddick, filed the first challenge, while Reddit filed the second.
Australia’s constitution lacks an explicit bill of rights, but decades of High Court precedent establish an implied freedom of political communication. Digital Freedom Project argued in written filings that social platforms provide young Australians with essential conduits for accessing news and discussing national affairs.
The advocacy group argued that cutting off youth access removes constructive avenues for civic participation and communal support before individuals reach voting age.
Reddit’s case against account restrictions
Perry Herzfeld, a barrister representing Reddit, told the judges that prohibiting teenagers from holding accounts denies them the ability to participate in public discourse. He described social networks as the primary vehicle for discussion in modern society.
“That is a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia,” Herzfeld said.
Herzfeld argued that the legislation failed to achieve its declared objective of minimising harm. He described the statutory design as ill-thought out because it leaves public posts visible to non-logged-in visitors while barring account creation.
Under that structure, teenagers can still read public material but lose access to account-level safety settings, content filtering and block tools. Herzfeld argued that if Parliament intended to counter specific harmful mechanics, it should have regulated those platform features directly instead of enacting a blunt account prohibition.
Reddit also contested the grouping of text-based discussion boards alongside algorithm-driven video platforms. In written submissions, the company argued that the restrictions lacked scientific consensus regarding online harms.
“The evidence so far is that the effectiveness of the ban has been limited,” Reddit’s submission reads.
Widespread evasion and enforcement disputes
Data presented during the proceedings highlighted operational difficulties with enforcing account age limits. A study published in the British Medical Journal in June found that 85 percent of surveyed Australian teenagers aged 12 to 17 continued using restricted networks after the law took effect.
An August study by Australian researchers similarly concluded that little empirical evidence pointed to teenagers abandoning social media services. Government findings from the eSafety Commissioner showed in March that seven in 10 underage minors maintained active profiles across Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.
Teenagers have regularly bypassed restrictions by entering falsified birth dates, using virtual private networks, or sharing login details with older peers.
The Digital Freedom Project originally lodged its claim alongside two 15-year-old plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland. The court removed both teenagers from the pleadings over concerns that an unsuccessful challenge could leave them liable for adverse legal expenses.
Jones, who has since turned 16 and aged out of the restrictions, told reporters outside court that the law represented creeping censorship directed at future voters. His mother, Renee Jones, said that while she worried about online risks, the prohibition prevented young people from developing digital literacy and resilience under parental guidance.
Penalties and the government’s defence
Communications Minister Anika Wells, named as a formal defendant in the proceedings, attended the hearing and rejected claims that the policy was unworkable. She told reporters outside the courtroom that the government was defending the democratic right of children to live free from digital harm against ideological attacks.
When Parliament passed the legislation, non-compliant platforms faced financial penalties capped at 49.5 million Australian dollars, roughly equivalent to $34.5 million. The federal government has since doubled those maximum penalties to 99 million Australian dollars ($69.5 million) while giving the eSafety Commissioner wider discovery powers to inspect platform compliance.
Regulators have said they are preparing enforcement litigation against platforms that fail to demonstrate sufficient efforts to identify and remove underage accounts. Ministers have also drafted separate legislation that would require networks to let users switch off algorithmic recommendation engines.
Regulatory pressure on tech firms in Australia extends beyond the High Court challenge. Meta faces an Australian class action lawsuit brought on behalf of eight minors, alleging that deceptive and habit-forming product design features caused psychiatric injury to young users.
What the ruling means for global tech rules
The High Court’s review comes as international governments weigh their own legal frameworks for youth internet access. Policymakers in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and several American state legislatures have studied Australia’s statutory age thresholds as a model for domestic bills.
Other jurisdictions have taken different paths. The EU halted national child social media bans to preserve a unified regulatory framework across member states through the Digital Services Act.
If the High Court invalidates the Australian legislation, regional governments pursuing comparable account prohibitions will face heightened constitutional hurdles regarding speech and access rights. A judgment upholding the ban will confirm the federal government’s authority to impose strict age-verification duties backed by nine-figure corporate penalties.
The two-day hearing in Melbourne will finish on Wednesday afternoon. The seven High Court judges will reserve their decision before delivering a written ruling later this year.
