Sunday 4 October 2026
Afternoon EditionRSS
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
Australia

Australian government admits no scientific consensus on social media harms but defends teen ban

Commonwealth tells high court 'credible risks' such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify world-leading policy

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources2 outlets
The Australian government has conceded in a high court challenge that it implemented its under-16s social media ban before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use, but argued that the 'credible risks' of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the policy.

In its defence against the legal challenge, the Commonwealth told the court that its proposed digital duty of care legislation, which would allow users to opt out of social media features such as algorithms, would ultimately have the same effect as the ban if implemented.

The government implemented what it called a 'world-leading' ban on social media for those under 16. The high court challenge has forced the government to defend the policy, leading to the concession that there is no scientific consensus on the harms. However, the government maintains that the potential for serious harm, including addictive behaviours and anxiety, presents 'credible risks' that warrant the ban.

The digital duty of care legislation, announced in September, is a separate but related measure that would give users more control over algorithmic content. The government's argument that this alternative approach would produce the same outcome as the outright ban suggests it sees both policies as addressing the same underlying concerns about social media's impact on young people.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The high court challenge could determine the legal validity of one of the world's most restrictive social media age bans.
  • The government's concession weakens the scientific justification for the ban but shifts the argument to a risk-based approach.
  • The outcome will affect millions of Australian teenagers and set a precedent for other countries considering similar bans.

Background

Australia's under-16 social media ban, passed in 2024, was the first of its kind globally. It requires platforms to block accounts for users under 16 or face significant fines. The law has been controversial, with critics arguing it infringes on freedom of expression and fails to address root causes of harm. The high court challenge is being brought by social media companies and digital rights groups. The government is also developing a separate digital duty of care framework that would impose obligations on platforms to protect users, including an opt-out from algorithmic recommendations.

Key Perspectives

Australian government: Argues that while definitive scientific proof is lacking, the credible risks of harm justify immediate action. It sees the ban and the duty of care as complementary tools that ultimately achieve the same protective outcome. Social media platforms and digital rights advocates: Challenging the ban on constitutional and practical grounds, likely arguing it is disproportionate and not supported by evidence. They may prefer the duty of care approach as less restrictive. Critics and skeptics: Question whether a ban without clear evidence of harm is justified and point to enforcement difficulties. Some argue the duty of care legislation is a more nuanced approach that should be tried first.

What to Watch

  • The high court's ruling on whether the ban is constitutionally sound.
  • Progress of the digital duty of care legislation through parliament.
  • Any shift in public opinion as the legal debate highlights the lack of scientific consensus.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workReport an errorSubscribe