Australia Under-16 Social Media Ban High Court Challenge Opens in Canberra

The Australia under-16 social media ban High Court challenge began in Canberra on Tuesday 3 November 2026, with all seven justices hearing two days of argument over the world’s first law of its kind. Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are asking the court to strike the law down. The Australian government, backed by every state and territory, says it protects children — and it intends to fight (Reuters; Asia Daily).

The law has been in force since 10 December 2025. Ten platforms — Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Reddit, Kick and Twitch — must take reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 holding accounts. The duty sits with the companies, not with children or parents, and serious or repeated failures carry fines of up to A$99 million. No company has been fined so far (The Business Standard).

The Australia under-16 social media ban High Court challenge, in the challengers’ words

Perry Herzfeld SC, for Reddit, did not ease into it. He called the legislation “ill thought out” and “inept,” and told the court that barring under-16s from accounts was “a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia” — a bar on creating or responding to content on “the most important means of communication in the modern world” (Reuters).

The constitutional hook is Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. Reddit points to its Ask Me Anything sessions, where users question political figures directly, and argues that teenagers who can read public discussion but cannot post, comment or vote on it have been made spectators in it (Asia Daily). Noah Jones, now 16 and a founding member of the Digital Freedom Project, put the same point outside the court: young people risk becoming “spectators in their own world,” adding, “They shouldn’t be shut out” (AAP). Jones and another teenager were originally plaintiffs in the case but were removed over concerns they could be liable for legal costs if it failed (The Business Standard).

Reddit’s case has a second limb. The company argues it should not be covered at all: its service is organised around text and subject matter rather than friend networks, and it lacks some features central to social media. Herzfeld also attacked how the law was made — passed within about a week in 2024, with 24 hours allowed for public submissions, against the grain of a 2021 parliamentary inquiry that had not recommended a ban (Reuters; Asia Daily).

Regulate the features, not the children, says the Reddit social media ban challenge

The challengers’ sharpest point is about aim. Harmful content on several platforms can be viewed without an account, so removing accounts does not remove exposure. If the Commonwealth fears particular features, Herzfeld argued, “it should regulate the features, which it has not done” (Reuters). A second Reddit barrister, Jackson Wherrett, offered the court four alternatives, among them banning push notifications and imposing time limits on endless scrolling, and pointed to the government’s own digital duty of care bill, which would oblige platforms to make their systems safer proactively (AAP).

Not every judge sounded persuaded by the political framing. Justice Jacqueline Gleeson questioned the weight placed on politically engaged teenagers, observing that the “vast majority of teens the vast majority of time” do not engage in politics when under 16 (Asia Daily).

For the government, Joanna Davidson SC began the defence on Tuesday and continues on Wednesday. She identified seven credible risks posed by platform design features, argued that children’s developing brains are particularly susceptible to them, and said parliament did not need to wait for fuller proof before acting (AAP). Outside the court, Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government was defending “an Australian child’s right to be free from harm” against what she called a sustained ideological attack (Reuters).

What the eSafety Commissioner account removals show — and what they don’t

Both sides can quote the enforcement record. The eSafety Commissioner, which enforces the ban, reported more than five million accounts removed or deactivated, and Meta said it closed around 500,000 accounts in the first days alone (AAP; The Business Standard). Yet an eSafety evaluation found about four in 10 children aged 10 to 15 were still active on social media three months after the ban began, down from 52 per cent before it (AAP). One child can hold accounts on several services, so the removal total and the usage figures are measuring different things (Asia Daily).

Separately, the eSafety Commissioner has investigations running into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube — a compliance fight about how the law is applied, distinct from this week’s constitutional question of whether it should exist at all (The Business Standard).

Analysis: The ruling, which cannot be appealed, will be read far beyond Canberra. Lawmakers from Britain to Malaysia are rolling out similar age restrictions, and a successful challenge could slow that spread, while a government win would give imitators a tested template (Reuters). The hearing concludes on Wednesday 4 November. Information verified through 3 November 2026.

Photo: Ymblanter, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Sources

1. https://ktwb.com/2026/11/02/reddit-blasts-australias-inept-social-media-ban-as-court-challenge-begins/
2. https://asiadaily.org/news/17283/
3. https://aapnews.aap.com.au/news/high-court-to-test-under-16s-social-media-ban
4. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/australias-under-16-social-media-ban-faces-high-court-challenge-1591006