Reddit Challenges Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban in the High Court — and the Judges Have Reserved Their Decision

Australia’s world-first ban on social media for children under 16 has reached the High Court. This week, lawyers for Reddit and a digital rights group told all seven justices that the law was rushed, too broad, and should be struck down as unconstitutional. The government pushed back, arguing that the ban protects young brains from harm. The judges have now reserved their decision — and whatever they decide will be watched far beyond Australia.

What happened in Canberra this week

The High Court began hearing the challenge on Tuesday, 3 November 2026, and the hearing ran for two days, finishing on Wednesday, 4 November. All seven justices sat together as the Full Court — a sign of how important the case is.

Two separate challenges were joined into one case. The first was brought by Reddit, the social media platform. The second was brought by the Digital Freedom Project, a campaign group led by John Ruddick, a Libertarian member of the New South Wales parliament. The cases are formally known as Reddit, Inc. v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor (S166/2025) and The Digital Freedom Project Incorporated v Commonwealth of Australia and Others (S163/2025).

The two teenagers who originally fronted the Digital Freedom Project’s case have since withdrawn as plaintiffs. One of them, Noah Jones, who is now 16, attended the hearing on Tuesday.

Reddit’s barrister, Perry Herzfeld SC, opened the case with a blunt attack on the law. He called the ban “ill thought out” and said it amounted to a “profound restriction on political debate”. His argument was simple: the law cuts teenagers off from what he called the most important means of communication in the modern world, and it does so in a way that breaches the implied freedom of political communication in Australia’s constitution.

Reddit is also asking the court for a separate declaration: that its service should never have been included on the government’s list of age-restricted platforms at all. Herzfeld called the law “ill-targeted” and “overbroad”, and said Reddit should not be treated the same way as the other nine platforms.

The government’s lawyers then spent the rest of the two days defending the ban. The hearing has now ended, and the court has reserved its decision. That means the judges will take time — likely months — to think about the arguments before handing down a ruling. The ban stays in force while they decide.

The ban itself: what it does and who it covers

To understand the court case, it helps to understand the law itself. Australia’s under-16 social media ban is the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

The ban is set out in Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021, which was added by the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. It took effect on 10 December 2025. From that day, ten named platforms became legally responsible for taking reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 from creating or keeping an account.

The ten platforms are Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Kick, X, and YouTube. Notably, some popular services are not on the list: Discord, WhatsApp and Messenger are not age-restricted under the law.

Platforms that fail to comply face fines of up to A$99 million (about US$69.5 million). The government has doubled the maximum fine since the law was first passed, given the eSafety Commissioner — the regulator in charge of enforcing it — greater powers to demand information, and said it is preparing an enforcement lawsuit against some of the biggest platforms. So far, no company has been fined.

The scale of the ban is already clear. More than five million accounts that platforms believe belong to under-16s have been suspended or deactivated across the ten platforms since December 2025.

But the ban has not removed teenagers from social media completely. Figures cited during the hearing showed that four in ten children aged 10 to 15 were still active on social media three months after the ban began — down from 52 percent before it started. In other words, the ban cut teenage use, but a large minority of young people are still finding their way onto the platforms.

Reddit’s case: the ban blocks political debate

Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are making the same core argument: the law places an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution.

Australia does not have a written bill of rights, and there is no explicit right to free speech in the constitution. But the High Court has long held that the constitution implies a freedom of political communication, because voters need to be able to discuss politics freely in a democracy. The challengers say the ban breaches that implied freedom.

Herzfeld, for Reddit, argued that barring under-16s from holding social media accounts stopped them from creating or responding to content on the most important channel of modern communication. Young people, he said, use social media to “speak, interact, organize and reach domestic and global audiences quickly and inexpensively”. Cutting them off, he argued, is a profound restriction on their ability to take part in political debate.

The challengers also attacked the way the law was made. They said it came from an “expedited legislative process of a kind apt to lead to ill thought out, overbroad legislation” — in plain language, that parliament rushed the law through without thinking it through properly.

They also pointed to a practical problem. The ban does not just affect under-16s. It also burdens adults over 16 who are unable or unwilling to complete the age-verification checks that platforms now use. And in his closing reply, Herzfeld argued that the ban produced the “worst possible outcome”: children were robbed of the ability to view safe online content, but could still use accounts belonging to adults — which exposed them to harmful content anyway.

The Digital Freedom Project’s lawyer, Adrian Maroya, added that if under-16s are protected by the implied freedom of political communication, then social media is an integral way of exercising it. A 16-year-old founding member of the group said young people should be able to share their views online — otherwise they would be “spectators in their own world”.

Reddit has said it will keep complying with the law while the challenge runs. Its chief communications officer, Adam Collins, said the company would continue to follow the rules and keep arguing for alternative ways to keep young people safe online.

The government’s defence: seven risks to young brains

The government’s lawyers took a very different view. They argued that the ban is a modest, proportionate measure designed to protect children from real harm — and that any burden on political communication is small.

Joanna Davidson SC, for the government, told the court that children are more vulnerable than adults to the addictive features of social media because their brains are not fully developed. She listed seven risks that she argued come from the way platforms are designed: addictive use, bad effects on sleep, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, worse eating disorders, and stronger symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

She also pointed to the design features shared across all ten banned services: videos that play automatically, recommendation systems that keep showing you more of the same, notifications switched on by default, and the promotion of popular content. These features, she argued, are built to hold attention and increase revenue — and they are exactly what makes the platforms risky for young users.

On the second day, government barrister Stephen Lloyd SC made an important concession: he accepted that the ban is an effective burden on under-16s’ ability to communicate politically. But he called that burden “narrow, indirect and modest” — a limited restriction whose benefits, protecting children, outweigh the cost.

Lloyd also rejected the alternatives Reddit had suggested the day before, arguing that they would not give children and young people the same protection as the ban. One idea raised during the hearing was that tech companies could create children-only versions of their platforms. Lloyd argued that the current law did not allow children to have any accounts at all, including restricted ones — and Herzfeld, in reply, said that was exactly the problem.

Communications Minister Anika Wells, who is a named defendant in the case, spoke outside the court during the hearing. She described regulating technology as one of the most important policy questions facing society, and said she would respect the court’s decision — which cannot be appealed — but would fight the challenge.

What the judges asked

The most interesting moments of a hearing are often the judges’ questions, because they show what the court is thinking about. Justice Jacqueline Gleeson pushed back on the challengers’ argument, asking whether most teenagers actually use social media for political discussion. She noted that the great majority of young people spend most of their time online doing other things.

That question goes to the heart of the case. If teenagers mostly use social media for entertainment, chatting with friends and watching videos — rather than for political debate — then the burden on political communication may look smaller than the challengers claim. But if social media is where young people learn about the world, form opinions and organise, then cutting them off looks like a much bigger restriction.

The court also has to decide a separate question: whether the Digital Freedom Project even has standing to bring the case — that is, whether it has the legal right to challenge the law in the first place.

Why this case matters far beyond Australia

Australia’s ban is the most ambitious attempt anywhere in the world to keep children off social media by law. That is why governments, tech companies and parents’ groups in many countries are watching this case so closely.

Other countries are already moving in the same direction. Türkiye has banned social media accounts for children under 15, and in the United States, Google, Meta and TikTok are suing California to block a new law on addictive social media feeds for under-16s. The Australian case is the first time a top court anywhere has been asked to decide whether such a ban is constitutional — and the answer could shape how other countries design their own laws.

If the High Court upholds the ban, it will be a green light for governments that want to follow Australia’s lead. If the court strikes the law down, or narrows it, Australia’s government will have to go back to the drawing board — and other countries will think twice before copying the model.

The case also matters for the tech companies themselves. Reddit is the only platform that has challenged the law directly, but all ten platforms will be affected by the outcome. A ruling that the ban is unconstitutional would be a major win for the industry. A ruling that it stands would confirm that governments can force platforms to verify the age of every user — a costly and difficult job.

And it matters for parents. The ban was popular when it was introduced, with strong support from parents worried about what their children see online. But it has also been controversial, with critics saying it pushes teenagers towards less safe corners of the internet, or simply makes them lie about their age.

What happens next

The hearing is over, and the court has reserved its decision. In the High Court, that usually means a ruling will come in several months’ time. There is no fixed date, and the judges will not give a hint about which way they are leaning.

In the meantime, the ban stays in force. Platforms must keep taking reasonable steps to keep under-16s off their services, and the eSafety Commissioner keeps its enforcement powers. The government has already said it is preparing an enforcement lawsuit against some of the biggest platforms.

If the court strikes down Part 4A of the Online Safety Act in full, the ban would fall away entirely, and the government would need new legislation. If the court strikes it down only in part, the ban might survive in a narrower form — for example, applying to some platforms but not others, or with different rules. And if the court upholds the law, the ban stands as it is.

One thing is already clear: this is not the end of the argument about children and social media. Whatever the High Court decides, the debate about how to keep young people safe online — without cutting them off from the modern world — will go on.

Frequently asked questions

What is Australia’s under-16 social media ban?

It is a world-first law, in force since 10 December 2025, that requires ten major social media platforms to take reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 from holding an account. Platforms that fail to comply face fines of up to A$99 million.

Which platforms are covered by the ban?

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Kick, X, and YouTube. Discord, WhatsApp and Messenger are not covered.

Who is challenging the ban, and why?

Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, a group led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick. They argue the ban breaches the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, and that it was rushed and overly broad.

What did the government argue?

That children are more vulnerable than adults to the addictive design of social media, and that the ban protects them from seven risks: addictive use, poor sleep, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders and worse ADHD symptoms. It conceded the ban burdens political communication, but called that burden indirect, narrow and modest.

When will the High Court decide?

The court heard the case on 3 and 4 November 2026 and has reserved its decision. A ruling is likely to take months, and there is no fixed date. The ban remains in force while the judges decide.

How many accounts have been affected so far?

More than five million accounts believed to belong to under-16s have been suspended or deactivated across the ten platforms since the ban began. Even so, four in ten children aged 10 to 15 were still active on social media three months after the ban started, down from 52 percent before it.

Conclusion

Australia tried something no other country had tried: a legal ban on social media for everyone under 16. Nearly a year after the ban came into force, its fate now rests with seven judges in Canberra.

Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project say the law was rushed, that it blocks teenagers from political debate, and that it produces the worst of both worlds — cutting young people off from safe content while leaving them exposed to harmful material through adult accounts. The government says the ban is a modest, necessary step to protect developing brains from platforms designed to hold their attention. The High Court’s answer will tell the world whether a democracy can ban its children from social media — and what should replace the ban if it cannot.

Sources

• Reuters — “Reddit blasts ‘inept’ Australian social media ban as challenge airs in court” (3 November 2026): https://dukecountry.fm/2026/11/02/reddit-blasts-australias-inept-social-media-ban-as-court-challenge-begins/
• BBC News — “Australia’s social media ban ‘ill thought out’, High Court told in legal challenge” (3 November 2026), via World Right Now.
• AAP — “Social media ban creates ‘worst outcome’, Reddit argues” (4 November 2026): https://aapnews.aap.com.au/news/lawmakers-hit-back-in-legal-fight-over-social-media-ban
• ABC News / NetInfluencer — “Australian Government Defends U-16 Social Media Ban In High Court Challenge By Reddit” (4 November 2026): https://www.netinfluencer.com/australian-government-defends-u-16-social-media-ban-in-high-court-challenge-by-reddit/
• DigWatch — “Australia’s High Court hears challenge to social media ban” (4 November 2026): https://dig.watch/updates/australia-high-court-social-media-challenge
• Reclaim the Net — “Australia Concedes Social Media Ban Burdens Political Communication” (6 November 2026): https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-concedes-social-media-ban-burdens-political-communication
• ItechPost — “Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban Challenged in Court as Government Defends Restrictions” (4 November 2026): https://Www.itechpost.com/articles/237720/20261104/australias-under-16-social-media-ban-challenged-court-government-defends-restrictions.htm

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.