Australia’s world-first law keeping children under 16 off major platforms faced its first big constitutional test on Tuesday, 3 November 2026. In Canberra, the High Court began hearing arguments from Reddit and the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project, who say the Australia social media ban is unconstitutional.
The hearing comes almost a year after the law took effect in December 2025. It is expected to continue on Tuesday and Wednesday.
What Is the Australia Social Media Ban?
The law requires age-restricted platforms to take reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Ten platforms are covered: Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, X, TikTok, YouTube, Kick, Reddit and Twitch. Companies that fail to comply risk fines of up to A$49.5 million.
According to figures reported in January 2026, nearly five million accounts have been blocked across the ten platforms since the ban began.
Why Reddit Is Challenging the Social Media Ban
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are running separate cases. The High Court has joined them into a single special case because both rely on the same constitutional argument: that the ban unreasonably burdens the implied freedom of political communication.
Their written submissions say young people use online accounts to speak, interact, organise and reach large audiences cheaply and quickly. They argue the loss is serious for under-16s because they cannot vote.
They also say there is a “fundamental disconnect” between what the law intends and what happens in practice. Many teenagers have reportedly got around age-checking technology, and harmful content can still be seen without an account. The plaintiffs add that less restrictive alternatives could have achieved the same goal.
Reddit is asking for two things:
- A declaration that the law is invalid
- A separate declaration that it is not an “age-restricted social media platform” under the legislation.
Reddit has said it will keep complying with the law while the case continues. It says it shares the aim of protecting young people but believes there are more effective ways to do it.
Government Defends the Under-16 Social Media Ban
The Commonwealth says the purpose of the law is to protect children from harms linked to platform features designed to maximise engagement and keep users online, which are driven by advertising profits.
Government lawyers are expected to argue that the rules are targeted, were developed through consultation and can be changed over time. They also say the constitutional freedom applies only to “electors”, meaning people old enough to vote, so any burden is indirect, modest and justified. State and territory attorneys-general have filed submissions backing the Commonwealth.
A government spokesperson said it will stand firm to protect young Australians and that it would be inappropriate to comment further while the matter is before the court.
International Interest in the High Court Challenge
The case has drawn global attention. The Free Speech Union in the UK, the US trade association NetChoice and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all asked to appear as “friends of the court”, known as amicus curiae.
What Experts Say About the Case
Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck said the government has a strong case, noting that the Commonwealth can clearly regulate social media and online spaces. He added that even if the challenge succeeds, the ban might not disappear. The problem could be a technical flaw that the government fixes by amending the legislation.
What Happens Next
The High Court has not yet delivered a decision. It is expected to reserve its judgment after hearing both sides, and a ruling could take months. The outcome will show how far Australia can go in regulating children’s access to social media. Other countries watching the first world-first age limit will be paying close attention.
