Reddit and advocacy group take Australia’s under-16 social media ban to high court

Australia’s ban on social media accounts for children under 16 faces its first major legal test this week, with Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project seeking to have it overturned. The high court will hear the challenges on Tuesday and Wednesday. The advocacy group is led by John Ruddick, a Libertarian member of the New South Wales parliament.

Nearly 11 months ago, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads were required to suspend or deactivate accounts belonging to users they identified as under 16. Prime minister Anthony Albanese has since said the restrictions have resulted in more than 5m account suspensions across those services.

The dispute centres largely on whether the restrictions place an impermissible burden on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. Australia has no guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Reddit argues that social platforms provide news and political information, pointing to its question-and-answer sessions with politicians and candidates. Its submission says teenagers cannot post about politics, respond to political material or interact with accounts operated by major parties’ youth wings.

The government says the law has a legitimate protective purpose: reducing the risks that social media poses to children under 16. Its defence identifies algorithms, infinite scrolling, persistent notifications and likes among the features associated with harm. The Digital Freedom Project makes many arguments similar to Reddit’s about political communication, but also faces a government challenge to its standing to bring proceedings.

Two teenagers, Noah Jones and Macey Nyland, were originally the lead plaintiffs in the advocacy group’s case but withdrew in July. There were understood to be concerns about their potential liability for legal costs if the challenge failed. The group says some members are aged 13 to 15, and teenagers are likely to feature as examples in its case. The government counters that the organisation has identified no activity of its own that the restrictions impede.

Constitutional law specialists differ over the challenges’ prospects. Professor Anne Twomey wrote last year that Reddit might succeed by demonstrating a mismatch between the law’s protective aim and its practical consequences, if it restricts political communication without preventing harm. Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck argued last year that the cases would probably fail because the ban only slightly reduces political communication overall and younger teenagers previously engaged in little of it. Last week, he also described establishing the advocacy group’s standing as difficult.

The proceedings come as other countries consider similar restrictions and questions persist about teenagers’ ability to evade Australia’s ban. The federal opposition has questioned whether suspension figures are inflated, while the government has declined to publish platform-by-platform totals. Using powers passed by parliament this year, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant is investigating compliance at TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook because teenagers continue to hold accounts. Companies could face fines approaching $100m per breach if the regulator pursues proceedings in federal court.

Parliament is separately debating digital duty of care legislation that would require platforms to act to prevent harm to users. Beck has said its passage could limit the benefit of a successful Reddit challenge. The government’s court submission argues that the proposed obligations would require equivalent action: either keeping children from holding accounts or giving them accounts without the restricted features.