Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project challenge Australia's under-16 social media ban in High Court

The challenge before the High Court

Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are asking the High Court to strike down Australia's ban on social media accounts for under-16s. The law took effect in December 2025 and requires ten platforms, among them Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads, to deactivate or suspend accounts of users they believe are under 16. The first day of hearings took place on Tuesday, 3 November, in Canberra, and the second is scheduled for Wednesday, 4 November. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said more than 5 million accounts across the ten services have been suspended under the ban.

Reddit's argument

Reddit's counsel, Perry Herzfeld SC, told the court that the legislation was introduced and passed in 2024 within a week, with only 24 hours allowed for submissions. Reddit contends that this process produced a law that is poorly drafted and too broad. Herzfeld said the ban does not target the features that concern lawmakers, such as logged-in functions, recommendation systems and endless scroll, and that those could be addressed through the digital duty of care bill now before parliament. Reddit also says the ban stops teenagers from posting or commenting on politics and from engaging with the youth wings of major parties. Its submission adds that much content stays viewable without an account, which limits the protection the law offers.

“A process of this kind is likely to lead to ill-thought out, over-broad legislation.”

Reddit points to an August study by Australia-based researchers that found little evidence teenagers had stopped using social media after the ban. Its counsel also said a 2021 parliamentary inquiry had not recommended a ban, and that the eSafety commissioner had warned the inquiry it would be a blunt force approach.

The Digital Freedom Project and its standing

The Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales MP John Ruddick, argues the ban is unconstitutional because it restricts teenagers' ability to take part in political discourse. In its written submissions, the group said:

“Social media is an important means of accessing news and engaging in political communication for young Australians, including children under 16.”

The government is challenging the group's standing to bring the case. Two teenage plaintiffs originally named in the action were withdrawn in July, which left the case with the advocacy group alone.

Government position and early reactions from the bench

The government argues the restrictions protect young users from graphic content and online predators, and from harmful features such as algorithms, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and likes. Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters outside the court that she was not the minister when the law passed, but that the government's arguments would be presented in court. Wells has also pointed to the spread of similar measures, noting that comparable laws have been adopted in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, the UAE, the UK and Turkey. The government has raised the maximum penalty for non-compliance to A$99 million, about US$69.5 million.

After the first day, several justices suggested the restriction on political communication may be modest, that children can shape public debate through other channels, and that the potential harms of social media are not minor. Those remarks point to a bench that is sceptical of Reddit's central claim, although no ruling has been issued.

Key dates

Reddit announced its High Court challenge in late 2025, after the eSafety commissioner said it would be covered by the ban and the company disputed that it met the legal definition of a social media platform. In March 2026, Wells introduced rules setting out additional requirements for platforms, including logged-in features, recommendation features and endless scroll. The timeline below sets out the main dates in the case.