Australia’s world-leading ban on under-16 social media accounts will face its first high court challenge this week, as Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, an advocacy group led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick, push to have the law overturned. The hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday will centre on whether the ban impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication.
Nearly 11 months ago, 10 platforms were required to deactivate or suspend the accounts of users they determined to be aged under 16. The platforms are Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said more than 5 million accounts across the services have been suspended as part of the ban.
Reddit has argued in its submission that online platforms are a common source of news and political information in Australia, pointing to its “Ask Me Anything” sessions where users have historically asked questions of politicians. The company argued that teens would not be able to make posts on politics, comment or react to political content, or engage with the social media accounts of the youth wings of the major political parties.
The Australian government has defended the law as serving the legitimate purpose of seeking to reduce the risk of harm for under-16s from what it describes as harmful features, including algorithms, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and likes.
The Digital Freedom Project faces an additional hurdle, with the government challenging its standing to bring the case. The group initially had two teens, Noah Jones and Macey Nyland, as lead plaintiffs, but both were withdrawn in July; it is understood there were concerns they could face potential legal costs in the event of a loss. The government argues the group has not identified any activity of its own that is impeded by the ban.
Legal experts are divided on the case’s prospects. Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey wrote last year that Reddit could be successful in highlighting the mismatch between the intended purpose of the law and its restrictive practical effect if the restriction is not preventing children from harm while also restricting their freedom of political communication. Luke Beck, professor of constitutional law at Monash University, wrote that the cases were likely to fail, as the ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication. Beck noted the extra standing hurdle for the Digital Freedom Project would also be difficult.
Meanwhile, the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is using new powers passed by parliament to investigate whether TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook are in compliance with the law, given the number of teens still holding accounts. The companies could face fines of up to nearly $100 million per breach if the regulator decides to take the case to the federal court. The federal parliament is also debating a digital duty of care bill, which Beck said could present a pyrrhic victory for Reddit if it successfully overturns the ban, as the government argues the bill would require the same action.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Australia’s social media ban is a world-first; many other nations are considering similar laws and watching the outcome.
- The High Court’s ruling will define the constitutional limits of regulating minors’ access to online platforms in Australia.
- The case pits child safety and harm reduction against core democratic principles of political communication.
Background
Nearly 11 months ago, Australia became the first country to require 10 major social media platforms to suspend accounts of users under 16. The government says over 5 million accounts have been deactivated. Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, an advocacy group headed by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick, are challenging the law in the High Court, arguing it infringes on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. The government defends the ban as a necessary measure to protect children from harmful platform features.
Key Perspectives
- Reddit: Argues the ban restricts teens’ access to political news and their ability to engage in political discourse on a major platform.
- Australian Government: Defends the law as a legitimate measure to reduce harm to under-16s from social media features.
- Digital Freedom Project: Contends that its under-16 members are directly affected by the ban and that the group has standing to represent their interests.
- Prof Anne Twomey: Believes Reddit could succeed if the court finds the law’s restrictions on communication outweigh its practical benefits.
- Prof Luke Beck: Expects the challenge to fail, given the slight impact on political communication and the difficulty of establishing standing for the advocacy group.
What to Watch
- The High Court’s decision on whether the Digital Freedom Project has standing to bring its case.
- The eSafety Commissioner’s compliance investigation into major platforms still hosting under-16 accounts.
- The progress of the digital duty of care bill, which could have overlapping requirements and render the current legal challenge moot.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- Partly supportedThe ban faces its first High Court challenge this week.World news | The Guardian: “Australia’s world-leading under-16s social media ban will face its first major legal challenge on Tuesday”
- SupportedThe ban is described as world-leading.World news | The Guardian: “Australia’s world-leading under-16s social media ban”
- SupportedReddit and the Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick, are seeking to overturn the ban.World news | The Guardian: “Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project – led by New South Wales state Libertarian MP John Ruddick – seek to overturn the ban.”
- SupportedExperts are divided on the case’s prospects.World news | The Guardian: “Legal experts have been divided on the prospect of success.”
- SupportedHearings on Tuesday and Wednesday will focus on whether the ban impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication.World news | The Guardian: “Whether the ban will stay will be the subject of the high court hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday this week as Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project – led by New South Wales state Libertarian MP John Ruddick – seek to overturn the ban. Australia does not have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech, and the case largely focuses on whether preventing under-16s from holding a social media account impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication in Australian law.”
- SupportedTen platforms were required to deactivate or suspend accounts of users they determined were under 16.World news | The Guardian: “Nearly 11 months ago, 10 platforms – Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads – were required to deactivate or suspend the accounts of users they determined to be aged under 16 years.”
- SupportedAlbanese said more than 5 million accounts across the services had been suspended under the ban.World news | The Guardian: “Since then, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said more than 5m accounts across the 10 services have been suspended as part of the ban.”
- SupportedReddit argued that online platforms are a common source of news and political information in Australia, citing its “Ask Me Anything” sessions where users have historically asked politicians questions.World news | The Guardian: “Reddit has argued in its submission to the court that online platforms are a “common source of news and political information” in Australia. The company pointed to its “Ask Me Anything” sessions on the site where users have historically asked questions of politicians of candidates.”
- SupportedThe government defended the law as seeking to reduce harm to under-16s from features including algorithms, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and likes.World news | The Guardian: “The Australian government has argued in its defence that the law serves the legitimate purposes of seeking to reduce the risk of harm for under-16s from social media platforms for the “harmful features” including algorithms, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and likes.”
- SupportedThe two teen lead plaintiffs were withdrawn in July, amid understood concerns about potential legal costs if they lost.World news | The Guardian: “However in July both were withdrawn from the case, leaving it to the advocacy group. It is understood there was concerns that the teens would face potential legal costs against them in the event of a loss.”
- SupportedThe government argues the Digital Freedom Project has not identified activity of its own impeded by the ban.World news | The Guardian: “The federal government’s submission argues the group has not identified any activity of the group that is impeded by the ban.”
- SupportedCompanies could face fines of up to nearly $100 million per breach if the regulator takes a case to the federal court.World news | The Guardian: “The companies could be facing the prospect of fines of up to nearly $100m a breach, if the regulator decides to take the case to the federal court.”