Reddit Takes Australia's Teen Social Media Ban to the High Court

The first legal challenge to Australia's teen social media ban began in the High Court of Australia, with a two-day hearing before all seven justices on Tuesday and Wednesday. Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group, the Digital Freedom Project, have taken the case to the court.

The law bans large social media platforms from letting under-16s hold accounts. It took effect in late 2025 and was described in the hearing coverage as a world first.

What Reddit told the court

Reddit lawyer Perry Herzfeld told the court the ban was ill thought out. He called it a profound restriction on political debate. His argument, as reported by Reuters, is that barring under-16s from accounts stops them creating or responding to content on a central means of modern communication.

Reddit chief communications officer Adam Collins set out the company position in a statement reported by B&T. He said: "We share the Australian government's goal of protecting young people online, but there are better, more effective ways to achieve it than the SMMA legislation." The company case is therefore not that young people need no protection. It is that this law is the wrong tool for that job.

The government side

The Australian government and its communications minister, a named defendant in the case, have said they will defend the law. The hearing is a contest between that defence and the claim that the ban restricts political communication too far.

The stakes have risen since the ban began. The government has doubled the maximum fine for non-compliance to A$99 million, about $69.5 million. It has also given the eSafety Commissioner greater discovery powers.

A July report from the eSafety Commissioner said more than five million Australian accounts had been removed or deactivated. Studies including one by the eSafety Commissioner have found most Australian teenagers under the cutoff age continue to use social media.

Voices outside the court

Teenager Noah Jones, a founding member of the Digital Freedom Project, spoke outside the court. He argued young people should be able to participate online and share their views, not just watch from the sidelines.

Jones and Macy Neyland were originally plaintiffs in the case. They were removed over concerns they could be held liable for legal costs if the case fails. Jones still spoke for the position the case carries into court: that teenagers are not only an audience for online debate, but part of it.

What the ban covers

The ban covers 10 platforms: TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, X and YouTube. Discord, WhatsApp and Messenger are not age-restricted.

That list matters for the court fight. The covered services are public places where news and politics move fast, while the services left out are mainly private messaging tools. The line the law draws is part of what the justices are being asked to judge.

The hearing runs for two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, before the full bench of seven justices. No ruling was reported in the hearing coverage. What is already clear is the question the court must answer: whether a law written to protect children can remove under-16s from the accounts through which modern political debate happens, and whether the size of the fines and the scale of the account removals change that answer.