High Court Hears Challenge to Law That Suspended 5 Million Under-16 Accounts

The suspension or deactivation of over 5 million user accounts across ten platforms has marked the practical impact of Australia's under-16 social media ban since its commencement in December 2025. The ban targets platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch, and Threads. Users under 16 on these services can view content but cannot post, comment, or upvote without an account.

Reddit has brought a challenge to the High Court, arguing the law impinges on the implied freedom of political communication for minors. Counsel Perry Herzfeld SC stated on Tuesday that the legislation was passed in 2024 within a single week, allowing only 24 hours for public submissions. He described the resulting law as "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation" that the government has since had to narrow.

The timeline of the legislation drew scrutiny from the court. A 2021 parliamentary inquiry into social media did not recommend a ban. At that time, the eSafety commissioner warned that such a measure would be a "blunt force approach." Despite these signals, the government moved forward with the ban in 2024.

Legal complications arose when eSafety determined Reddit met the legal definition of a social media platform. Reddit disputed this classification, leading to the High Court challenge announced in late 2025. In March 2026, Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced amendments to the law. These changes added requirements for logged-in features, recommendation algorithms, or endless scroll to trigger the ban.

Herzfeld argued that the current ban is too broad and that the issues could be addressed under digital duty of care legislation currently before parliament. He noted that teens can still engage politically on platforms like r/Australia, though their ability to reach a wide audience is limited compared to other media. Justice Jacqueline Gleeson expressed reservations about the extent of political engagement by under-16s, noting that the "vast majority of teens the vast majority of time" do not engage in politics when under that age.

Minister Wells, who was not in office when the original legislation passed, told reporters outside the court that the government's response would be made within the proceedings. The case centers on whether the ban's restriction on political communication is justified by what the government describes as a "credible risk" of harms, including mental health, sleep, and eating disorders.

The High Court will also hear arguments from the Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick. Ruddick appeared outside the court with Noah Jones, the 16-year-old original plaintiff, and his mother Renee. One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts also joined them. The legal proceedings continue this week.

The court is tasked with determining if the government's justification for the ban holds up against the constitutional implication of the freedom of political communication. The outcome will determine whether the specific requirements for social media platforms remain in force or if the law requires further modification.