Reddit and Libertarian MP Take Australia's Under-16 Social Media Ban to Court

Australia's under-16 social media ban gets its first serious day in court on Tuesday, with hearings running Tuesday and Wednesday in the high court. Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project — led by New South Wales state Libertarian MP John Ruddick — are asking the court to strike the law down. It's the first major legal test of a rule Australia has billed as world-leading.

The ban has been running for nearly 11 months. Ten platforms — Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads — were ordered to deactivate or suspend accounts they judged to belong to under-16s. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has since said more than 5m accounts across those services have been suspended.

Reddit's core argument is about politics, not screen time. Australia has no guaranteed right to free speech, so the case hinges on whether blocking under-16s from holding accounts impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication. Reddit told the court that platforms are a common source of news and political information, pointing to its "Ask Me Anything" sessions where users have questioned politicians and candidates. Teens, the company argued, would be shut out of posting about politics, commenting, reacting, or engaging with the social media accounts of major parties' youth wings.

The federal government's defence leans on the "harmful features" it says the law targets: algorithms, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and likes. It argues reducing the risk of harm to under-16s is a legitimate purpose. For the Digital Freedom Project, though, there's a second fight — the government is challenging whether the group has standing to bring the case at all, arguing it hasn't identified any of its own activity that the ban impedes. The group says some of its members are 13 to 15 years old. Two teenagers originally listed as lead plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macey Nyland, were withdrawn from the case in July, reportedly over concerns they could face legal costs if they lost.

Constitutional law experts are split. Prof Anne Twomey wrote last year that Reddit could succeed by exposing a mismatch between the law's intended purpose and its practical effect — if the restriction isn't actually shielding kids from harm while it narrows their political speech. Luke Beck of Monash University wrote it would likely fail, since the ban only slightly trims the overall volume of political communication in Australia and 13- to 15-year-olds weren't doing much of it beforehand anyway. On the standing question, Beck said last week: "The government is arguing that DFP is not impacted by the law so therefore can't challenge it," adding that courts "traditionally aren't too keen" on advocacy groups challenging laws.

The stakes stretch well past these two days. Other countries are weighing copycat bans, though there have been concerns teens can easily dodge the rules, and the federal opposition says the suspended-account figures may be inflated — the government won't release a per-platform breakdown. Meanwhile eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant is using fresh powers passed this year to investigate whether TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook are complying, with potential fines approaching $100m per breach if the regulator takes a company to federal court. Parliament is also debating digital duty of care legislation that Beck says could hand Reddit a pyrrhic victory: the government has argued in its submission that the duty of care obligations would "require the same action" as the ban itself.