Australia Defends Teen Social Media Ban in High Court

Australia’s government has defended its controversial ban on social media accounts for children under 16, arguing before the country’s High Court that the restrictions are a targeted response to harmful platform features rather than an excessive limitation on young people’s freedom of expression. The legal challenge, brought by Reddit, has raised important questions about the balance between protecting teenagers online and preserving their ability to participate in political discussions and public life.

During a High Court hearing on Wednesday, government barrister Stephen Lloyd SC argued that the legislation was designed to reduce the risks associated with social media platforms, particularly features intended to keep users engaged for extended periods. He maintained that the restrictions were not an indiscriminate attempt to prevent young people from accessing information but a direct measure to address online environments that could expose children to harm.

The case centres on Australia’s decision to prohibit major social media platforms from allowing users under 16 to hold accounts. The legislation, introduced by the government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and passed in 2024, came into effect in December 2025. Since then, more than five million accounts believed by platforms to belong to under-16s have been suspended or deactivated across 10 services.

Reddit is challenging the law, arguing that it is excessively broad and interferes with the implied freedom of political communication protected under Australia’s constitutional framework. The company maintains that teenagers should not be prevented from participating in online political discussions simply because they are under 16. It has also questioned whether the government adequately considered alternative approaches before introducing the restrictions.

The dispute has developed into a wider debate about the responsibilities of technology companies, the safety of children and the role of social media in modern democratic participation. For teenagers, online platforms are not only places for entertainment and social interaction. They can also provide access to news, political debates, educational discussions and opportunities to express opinions on issues affecting their communities.

Reddit argued that the legislation was rushed through parliament in 2024 and amounted to poorly considered, overly broad regulation. The company pointed to the government’s subsequent introduction of additional rules in 2026, which were designed to identify platform features that could contribute to harm among younger users. According to Reddit, the need for later adjustments demonstrates that the original legislation was not sufficiently precise.

The company also referred to earlier comments by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, who said in 2021 that banning accounts could be considered a blunt instrument for addressing the risks teenagers face on social media. Reddit used those remarks to question whether preventing under-16s from maintaining accounts was the most effective way to protect them.

However, the government rejected the argument that the law should be judged solely by the circumstances surrounding its initial passage. Lloyd told the court that the legislation was designed from the beginning to allow the communications minister to introduce additional rules when necessary. He argued that the court should assess how the system operates today, including the regulatory changes made since the law was enacted.

According to the government’s position, the restrictions are directed at specific design characteristics that can encourage prolonged and repetitive use of social media. These include endless scrolling, likes, comments, personalised recommendations and push notifications. Such features can create patterns of engagement that make it difficult for younger users to disengage from online platforms.

The government argued that there is a credible risk that these mechanisms may contribute to several forms of harm among children, including sleep disruption, depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. By preventing under-16s from holding accounts on designated platforms, authorities believe they can reduce exposure to the systems that encourage intensive use.

Lloyd maintained that the legislation was not a blunt instrument because it was designed to minimise the adverse effects associated with these features. He argued that the risks are particularly connected to the account-based experience offered by social media companies, where personalised content, recommendations and notifications can influence how users interact with platforms.

The government also highlighted the distinction between accessing publicly available information and holding a registered account. Reddit allows people to browse much of its content without signing in, while similar access to some material is available on YouTube. Lloyd argued that children could continue to obtain information through these channels and use other online services that are not covered by the restrictions.

The platforms currently subject to the ban include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. YouTube Kids has received an exemption, but the other companies have not secured exemptions for separate versions of their services specifically designed for teenagers.

Lloyd acknowledged that the ban places a burden on the ability of under-16s to participate in political communication. However, he described that impact as narrow, indirect and modest. The government also argued that the law is viewpoint neutral because it does not distinguish between political opinions or restrict access based on the political nature of information.

The legislation places responsibility on the platforms rather than directly punishing children who hold accounts. Under the government’s explanation, there is no penalty imposed on a child simply for maintaining an account. Instead, companies are required to take steps to prevent underage users from accessing the services covered by the law.

Lloyd also argued that the restrictions affect a relatively limited age group because most of the platforms already set minimum account ages of 13 under their own terms of service. He suggested that the legislation does not prevent teenagers from accessing every form of online communication or information.

During the hearing, the government raised the hypothetical possibility that Reddit could develop a separate version of its service for children. A product such as a hypothetical Reddit Kids could potentially allow under-16s to participate in online discussions without exposing them to the features identified as harmful. However, Lloyd acknowledged that such a service would still require the company to assess users’ ages.

Reddit strongly disputed the government’s position. Its barrister, Perry Herzfeld SC, argued that once a platform is designated as subject to the legislation, it has little practical flexibility to make changes to harmful features while allowing teenagers to continue using the main service.

According to Herzfeld, Reddit cannot simply remove personalised recommendations or other potentially harmful functions for younger users and allow them to participate in the existing platform. Instead, the company would have to develop an entirely separate application, which could prevent teenagers from interacting with the wider community.

Reddit argued that this approach creates an unnecessary barrier to communication. A separate service could isolate younger users from discussions taking place on the main platform, including conversations about politics, public policy and current events. The company believes that more targeted regulation would offer a better way to protect children without removing their access to broader online communities.

Herzfeld also referred to a digital duty of care bill currently before the Australian parliament. The proposed legislation would provide platforms with an alternative approach, allowing companies to remove certain features from teenage accounts or restrict under-16s from using accounts where necessary. Reddit suggested that this type of flexible framework would be more proportionate than a broad prohibition.

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for Australia’s approach to online safety. If the High Court upholds the restrictions, the government will receive important legal support for its decision to place strict age-based limits on social media access. A ruling in Reddit’s favour, however, could force policymakers to reconsider how the law balances children’s safety with constitutional protections for political communication.

The case also comes amid growing international concern about the influence of social media on young people’s mental health, behaviour and access to information. Governments in several countries are examining whether existing safeguards are sufficient to protect children from harmful content, addictive platform designs and online exploitation.

For parents and families, the debate reflects a difficult challenge. Social media can expose teenagers to bullying, harmful material and unhealthy patterns of use, but it can also help them develop social connections, learn about public issues and engage with wider society. Finding an effective balance between those benefits and risks remains a major policy question.

Australia’s High Court has reserved its decision, meaning the final outcome has yet to be announced. Until the judges deliver their ruling, the existing restrictions remain central to the country’s social media regulatory framework. The decision will help determine how far governments can go in limiting young people’s access to digital platforms in the name of safety while protecting their ability to communicate and participate in public debate.