Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project argued at Australia’s High Court on Tuesday that the country’s under-16 social media ban is unconstitutional. The ban took effect in December, and the case is the latest legal test of the law.
Reddit’s counsel, Perry Herzfeld SC, argued that the ban breaches the implied freedom of political communication for under-16s. According to the Guardian, he described it as "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation" that was rushed through with only 24 hours for submissions.
According to the Guardian, more than 5 million accounts that the platforms understand belong to under-16s have been suspended or deactivated across 10 platforms since the ban took effect. The ten platforms include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads and Twitch. The law requires them to take "reasonable steps" to keep under-16s off their sites.
Government barrister Joanna Davidson SC told the court that the platforms’ design features, such as autoplay and recommendations, carry a "compounding" risk of harm to children, according to the Guardian.
Outside court, Communications Minister Anika Wells said Australia is defending "a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy" and a child’s right to be free from harm, according to the BBC.
Platforms face fines of up to A$99m for serious or repeated breaches. However, no company has been fined since the ban started, according to the BBC.
The case has other complications. Two original teen plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macey Nyland, withdrew as plaintiffs, citing legal cost risk according to the Guardian. The BBC reports that they have not publicly stated their reasons. The court also heard that the Digital Freedom Project has "at least one" member aged 13 to 15 affected by the ban, and the group’s standing to bring the case was at issue.
Several points remain unclear. The government’s full response to Reddit’s arguments has not yet been heard. Al Jazeera reports that it was unclear how long the court would take to reach a decision. Al Jazeera also cites an August study by Australia-based researchers that found little evidence teens stopped using social media, but this has not been checked against the study itself. The Guardian’s account of the hearing has not been cross-checked against a court transcript, and the BBC background pieces were available only as a headline and excerpts. The Digital Freedom Project’s arguments were largely adopted from Reddit’s, and its separate submission was not detailed beyond the constitutional claim.
The government continues its argument on Wednesday. The High Court will then consider the case, but no ruling timeline has been given.
Sources
This article was written with AI assistance from the published reporting listed above. It is part of the World Brief daily news podcast.