Reddit challenges Australia's under-16s social media ban in High Court

The High Court of Australia heard Reddit's challenge to the country's ban on social media accounts for under-16s on 3 November 2026. Both the Guardian and Reuters reported the hearing.

Counsel for Reddit argued that the ban was ill thought out. Reddit's challenge argues that the law restricts political communication.

According to Reuters, it is the first legal challenge to the law, which Reuters described as a world-first teen social media ban. According to the Guardian, Reddit's counsel was Perry Herzfeld SC. The Guardian reported that the challenge rests on the argument that the ban impinges on the implied freedom of political communication for under-16s.

Background

According to the Guardian, the ban came into effect in December 2025. Reddit announced its challenge in late 2025, after eSafety said Reddit would be included in the ban. Reddit does not accept that it meets the law's definition of a social media platform.

The Guardian reported that the ban currently covers Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. More than 5 million accounts across these 10 platforms have been suspended or deactivated, according to the Guardian. The platforms themselves believe these accounts belong to under-16s. The reports do not include a per-platform breakdown, and the figure is not independently verified.

In March 2026, Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced new rules under the law, according to the Guardian. The rules add requirements for a service to count as a social media platform, such as logged-in features, recommendation features or endless scroll.

The Guardian reported that the case centres on whether the limit on political communication is justified by what the government calls a "credible risk" of harms. These include mental health issues, sleep issues and eating disorders.

During the hearing, Justice Jacqueline Gleeson expressed reservations when counsel cited politically engaged teens, according to the Guardian. One example was Leo Puglisi of 6News, who started his news site at age 11. The Guardian quoted the judge as referring to the "vast majority of teens the vast majority of time" not engaging in politics.

A separate challenge by the Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick, is due to be heard this week, according to the Guardian. The reports do not clarify how the timing of the two cases relates. The case is continuing.

What each side says

• Reddit: The government passed the law in 2024 within a week, allowing only 24 hours for submissions. The Guardian quoted Herzfeld as saying: "A process of this kind is likely to lead to ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation". Reuters quoted a Reddit lawyer calling the ban a "profound restriction on political debate". Reddit's lawyers cited a 2021 eSafety commissioner warning that a ban would be a "blunt force approach". They argued that under-16s can view Reddit but cannot post, comment or upvote, and that platforms offer a wider audience than "shouting on the street".
• Australian government: According to the Guardian, the government has said the ban addresses a "credible risk" of harms to under-16s, such as mental health, sleep and eating disorder issues. Speaking to reporters outside the court, Wells said she was not the minister when the law passed and that the government would make its arguments in court, according to the Guardian. Beyond that stated justification, the reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not detail the government's arguments in court.

Analysis

The case tests how far Australia's implied freedom of political communication limits age-based rules for online platforms. If the court upholds the ban, it could strengthen the government's approach and its reliance on evidence of harm. If the court finds the limit unjustified, the government may need to narrow or redesign the law, possibly through other measures such as the digital duty of care legislation Reddit cited. Reddit's separate argument about the law's definition of a social media platform could also matter. The reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not say when a ruling is expected, so any outcome remains uncertain.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.