Australia's Under-16 Social Media Ban Faces Its First High Court Test

On Tuesday, Australia's High Court begins two days of hearings on a challenge to the country's ban on social media for children under 16. It is the first major courtroom test of a policy no other nation had put in place before Australia did.

The lead case was filed by the Digital Freedom Project, a digital rights group led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick. It lodged the constitutional challenge a few weeks before the ban took effect on 10 December last year. The group will argue that the ban strips under-16s of their right to free communication. A separate challenge from the platform Reddit, arguing the law carries serious implications for privacy and political rights, will be heard jointly with it.

The case began with two teenagers, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, who spearheaded it. Both have since withdrawn as plaintiffs, though Jones is still expected to attend Tuesday's hearing. Speaking to the BBC last November, he said there were bad things online but a blanket ban was not the right answer. He argued that social media companies should not be spending money and resources avoiding government fines when they could be using them to get rid of predators and harmful content.

Reddit says it shares Australia's goal of protecting young people online but believes there are better and more effective ways than a ban. Its chief communications officer, Adam Collins, said the company will keep complying with the law while it challenges it in court, and will keep advocating for other youth safety measures.

The government has been unmoved. Communications Minister Anika Wells said last November that it would not be intimidated by legal threats or by big tech, and that it would stand firm on behalf of Australian parents. The ban is a central piece of sweeping online safety changes the government has driven in recent years. Supporters say it shields children from harmful content, while critics call it too blunt an instrument and say the focus should be on making the online world safer.

Under the law, ten platforms must take "reasonable steps" to keep anyone under 16 off their services: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads and Twitch. Serious or repeated breaches can bring fines of up to A$99m (US$70m, £52m). Yet since the ban began, no company has been fined. The eSafety Commissioner, which enforces the rules, has opened several investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

The ban has limits. WhatsApp and gaming sites such as Roblox and Discord are not covered, nor are educational services like YouTube Kids and Google Classroom.

In practice, results have been mixed. In the first few days, Meta, which owns three of the banned platforms, said it had closed about half a million accounts. Some children reported being removed from their accounts in the days around the start date. Many others say they got past the age checks easily, whether those involved uploading credit card details, photo ID or a selfie.

The High Court's ruling will show whether an age-based blanket ban can survive constitutional scrutiny, and other governments weighing similar measures will be watching.