Reddit tells Australia's High Court the under-16 ban is 'inept'

Australia’s world-first ban on social media accounts for under-16s was “ill thought out” and amounted to a “profound restriction on political debate”, a lawyer for the platform Reddit told the country’s top court in the first legal challenge to the law, Dawn reported, citing Reuters.

Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group have gone to the High Court to contest the law, which bans large social media platforms from letting under-16s have an account. It took effect in late 2025, with support from parents and opposition from technology companies.

The case against the law

The plaintiffs say the law should be declared invalid because it breaches an implied freedom of political expression in Australia’s constitution. Perry Herzfeld, for Reddit, told the seven-judge panel that stopping under-16s from holding accounts stops them from creating or responding to content on what he called “the most important means of communication in the modern world”.

“That is a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia,” Herzfeld said. “There is a very substantial restriction on what young people can now do.”

Reddit also argued the law should not apply to it anyway, because it lacks features central to social media, such as a reliance on friend networks. It agreed with the government’s aim of reducing harm but said the law failed to achieve it. Herzfeld called the legislation “ill thought out” and “inept” because it did not require any specific measure to keep minors out and did not cover other online services where cyberbullying happens, such as gaming websites. He added that a large amount of social media material is visible to people without an account, since only logged-in users can post or comment.

The government’s reply

The Australian government, and its communications minister Anika Wells, who is a named defendant, say they will defend the law. Speaking outside the court, Wells said she would respect the court’s decision, which cannot be appealed, but would fight the challenge. “We are here to defend a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy, which is an Australian’s right, and particularly an Australian child’s right, to be free from harm,” she said.

Why other countries are watching

A successful challenge could bring more opposition from the affected companies and slow a global spread of similar policies, Reuters noted, as lawmakers from Britain to Malaysia roll out measures meant to protect young people’s mental and physical health. Australia’s law is the first of its kind, so the High Court’s reading of the constitution will be closely read elsewhere, even though other countries have different legal tests. Child safety online is a concern in Pakistan too: see our report on a study of online sexual abuse of Pakistani children, and on the order for Meta to pay New Mexico $25 billion over Cambridge Analytica.

What we know, and what we don’t

• Known: Reddit and a libertarian group are challenging the law in the High Court, with a seven-judge panel hearing the case.
• Known: the government says it will defend the law, and the court’s decision cannot be appealed.
• Unknown: when the court will rule, which the report does not say.
• Unknown: how the judges will treat Reddit’s argument that it is not a “social media” platform as the law defines it.

Why it matters

The ban is a world-first and a test case for governments trying to limit what children see online. If the court strikes it down, or reads it narrowly, other countries drafting similar laws will have a template for the arguments tech companies will use. If it stands, it will strengthen the hand of governments that want to act. Either way, the outcome will affect millions of young people and the platforms that serve them.

This article draws on reporting by Dawn, citing Reuters.