Reddit has launched a constitutional challenge against Australia's ban on social media use by under-16s, arguing the legislation was rushed through parliament without adequate scrutiny and now impinges the implied freedom of political communications for teenagers. The company's legal team presented oral arguments before the High Court on Tuesday, contending that the government's rapid passage of the law in 2024 produced "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation" that has since required modification.
According to The Guardian, Reddit's counsel Perry Herzfeld SC told the court that the ban restricts teenagers' ability to participate in online political discourse through platforms like the subreddit r/Australia, where young people can post, comment and vote on content. While under-16s can still view material without logging in, the account restrictions prevent active participation in these communities.
The case centres on whether the legislation's burden on political communications is justified by the government's stated concerns about "credible risk" of harms including mental health issues, sleep disruption and eating disorders. The High Court's case summary indicates that Reddit disputes whether its platform qualifies as an "age-restricted social media platform" under Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021, arguing instead that its text-based structure and content-focused design distinguish it from traditional social networks.
How did the legislation reach this point?
The government introduced and passed the ban within a single week in 2024, allowing only 24 hours for public submissions. Herzfeld argued this compressed timeframe was inherently likely to produce flawed legislation. A 2021 parliamentary inquiry into social media had not recommended a blanket ban, and the eSafety Commissioner had warned the inquiry at that time that such an approach would constitute a "blunt force approach."
When the eSafety Commissioner announced that Reddit would be included in the ban, the company disputed whether it met the legal definition of a social media platform. In late 2025, Reddit announced its High Court challenge. In March 2026, Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced new rules that added specific requirements for platforms to meet the definition, including logged-in features, recommendation algorithms, or endless scroll functionality. Herzfeld argued that the current legislation does not address these factors through targeted regulation but instead imposes a blanket ban on under-16 accounts.
Outside the courtroom on Tuesday, Wells told reporters she was not the minister when the legislation originally passed, but said the government would present its arguments in court. According to the BBC, the law allows fines of up to A$99 million for serious or repeated breaches, though no company had been fined since the ban began.
What has been the practical impact of the ban?
Since the restrictions took effect on 10 December 2025, more than 5 million accounts across ten platforms have been suspended or deactivated by those platforms' operators, who believe the accounts belonged to users under 16. The affected platforms include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads.
However, a June study suggested that as many as 80 per cent of under-16s were still using social media despite the restrictions, raising questions about enforcement effectiveness. Reddit's written submissions argue that the ban has limited practical effect, lacks scientific consensus on social media harms, and may leave young people exposed to harmful material when they browse without accounts, since they cannot report or flag problematic content.
What is Reddit's argument about political participation?
Herzfeld told the court that the platforms covered by the ban offer teenagers a substantially wider audience than traditional means of political expression such as street protest or media interviews. He argued that preventing under-16s from posting, commenting and voting on these platforms meaningfully restricts their capacity to engage in political communications.
Justice Jacqueline Gleeson expressed scepticism of this argument, noting that the "vast majority of teens the vast majority of time" when under 16 do not engage in politics. She pointed to examples of high-profile young people who have been politically active on social media, such as Leo Puglisi of 6News, who launched his news site at age 11, but suggested these were exceptions rather than the norm.
Reddit's barrister further argued that the platform's structure—text-based, without endless feeds, and focused on content rather than the poster—distinguishes it from traditional social networks. By contrast, messaging platforms including Discord, WhatsApp and Messenger are not among the age-restricted services covered by the ban.
Who else is challenging the ban?
The Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW libertarian MP John Ruddick, is also mounting a separate constitutional challenge that is being heard jointly with Reddit's case this week. Two teenagers who initially joined the Digital Freedom Project's challenge as plaintiffs have since withdrawn from the case. Ruddick appeared outside the court on Tuesday alongside One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.
The Digital Freedom Project filed its constitutional challenge in the weeks before the ban took effect on 10 December 2025, making it one of the first legal challenges to the legislation.
What happens next?
The High Court hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday, 4 November 2026, with proceedings recorded for both 3 and 4 November. A decision date has not been set; even a swift High Court ruling would typically take several months to be handed down. The outcome will determine whether the ban can proceed in its current form or whether the court finds it unjustifiably restricts the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution.
