The Australia social media ban for under-16 accounts faced its first major High Court test on Tuesday, when Reddit and a digital rights group argued the law unconstitutionally limits political communication. Seven judges in Canberra began a two-day hearing, ending Wednesday, into challenges already covering Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X and other major apps.
Key Takeaways
- High Court judges opened a two-day hearing on the under-16 account ban.
- Reddit and Digital Freedom Project say the law limits political speech.
- Ten platforms must take reasonable steps to keep under-16 accounts off.
- eSafety is investigating five apps, and no fines have been issued yet.
What the Australia Social Media Ban Covers
The ban took effect on 10 December last year. It bars children younger than 16 from accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube and Twitch. Platforms must take reasonable steps to keep those children off. BBC News reported that WhatsApp, Roblox, Discord, YouTube Kids and Google Classroom are not covered.
Two challenges are being heard together. The Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick, claims the law robs millions of young Australians of an implied freedom of political communication. Reddit says the ban raises privacy and political expression issues and should not sit in the same category as other platforms.
The group adopted Reddit’s arguments, and the court heard it has at least one member aged between 13 and 15. ABC News reported that Noah Jones and Macy Neyland were removed as plaintiffs over concerns they could be held liable for legal costs. Jones, now 16, is no longer subject to the ban.
Why Reddit Says the Ban Limits Speech
Perry Herzfeld SC said the 2024 law was introduced and passed within a week, after only 24 hours for submissions. “A process of this kind is likely to lead to ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation,” he argued, The Guardian reported. A 2021 inquiry had not recommended a ban, and eSafety had warned of a blunt force approach.
Without an account, under-16s can view r/Australia but cannot post, comment or upvote. Herzfeld argued the platforms offer teens a much wider audience than shouting on the street or a media interview. He said they could not shout their views on a street corner, or be interviewed by mainstream media, and hope to get the same engagement.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that he pointed to the School Strike for Climate and the 12-year-old founder of 6 News. Justice Jacqueline Gleeson said the “vast majority of teens the vast majority of time” do not engage in politics while under 16. The Herald reported that the full bench suggested teens could use WhatsApp or email, while Justice James Edelman said young people had influenced political debate for centuries before social media.
Herzfeld said Reddit differs in four ways: pseudonyms rather than friend networks, mostly text instead of images, no endless feed, and no time-limited automatic deletion. He said it has some targeted features, and that none of the cited studies mentioned Reddit. Alternatives he listed included:
- The digital duty of care bill now before parliament
- Laws prohibiting push notifications
- Limits on how long children can spend on a platform
- Child accounts allowed only with parental control
How the Government Defends the Ban
“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,” Communications Minister Anika Wells said outside court, according to BBC News. “We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack.”
Government barrister Joanna Davidson SC said engagement features are broadly shared across all 10 platforms, including Reddit. She listed autoplay video, recommendation systems, notifications by default and surfacing the most popular content.
She said those features can compound harm, including a lack of sleep and a greater likelihood of depression. Separately, she said children are more vulnerable because of their stage of development. The government says a “credible risk” of harm justifies the speech limit. Its argument continues Wednesday.
Enforcement Figures the Outlets Reported
BBC News reported that no company has been fined, and that the eSafety Commissioner has launched investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. Meta, which owns three of the banned platforms, said it closed about half a million accounts in the first days. The outlet figures below are separate totals:
| What was reported | Figure | Outlet |
|---|---|---|
| Fine for failing reasonable steps | Up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($34.5 million) | ABC News |
| Fine for serious or repeated breaches | Up to A$99m (US$70m) | BBC News |
| Under-16 accounts suspended or deactivated | More than 5 million | The Guardian |
| Accounts the government says were deactivated | 4.7 million | Sydney Morning Herald |
| Reddit share of deactivated accounts | Almost 44,000 | Sydney Morning Herald |
| Studied group aged 12 to 17 still on restricted platforms | 85% | ABC News |
| Underage users still on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok | 7 in 10 | ABC News |
What the Ban Means for Users
ABC News reported the government said in June it was considering strengthening the laws, after evidence that young children were still on social media. Some children told BBC News they were removed near the start date, while many said they bypassed checks with a credit card, photo ID or a selfie.
Renee Jones told ABC News she was “fiercely afraid” of the problems social media presented, but wanted her son responsible online and able to identify the dangers. Reddit’s Adam Collins said the company will continue to comply while arguing there are “better and more effective ways.” Readers comparing age rules can see our report on a UK social media ban.
