Australia’s landmark move to bar children under 16 from major social media sites is facing its biggest test yet, with the High Court now weighing constitutional challenges to the world-first ban.
All seven High Court judges on Tuesday began hearing two separate cases targeting the legislation, which took effect last year and applies to under-16s holding accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube and Twitch.
One challenge has been filed by the Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project, a human rights organisation arguing the law unlawfully strips millions of young Australians of the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
The other case has been brought by the US-based online forum Reddit, which contends the restrictions raise serious questions around privacy and political expression.
Reddit also maintains it should not have been lumped into the same category as the other banned platforms.
The hearing is scheduled to run for two days and conclude on Wednesday.
When the Digital Freedom Project case was launched last year, two Sydney 15-year-olds — Noah Jones and Macy Neyland — were initially listed as plaintiffs. They were later removed amid concerns they could be exposed to legal costs if the challenge is unsuccessful.
Standing outside court, Noah — now 16 and no longer covered by the ban — said he viewed the legislation as a step toward tighter control of what young people can access online.
“I believe that this is just a stepping stone further and further to censorship and I think they’ve masked it as this form of child safety,” he said.
“But in the end, it’s really just them trying to slowly gain more and more control of what young people see as they will be voters.”
Noah’s mother, Renee Jones, said she was “fiercely afraid” of the harms social media can pose for young people, but argued the government had not chosen the right solution.
She said cutting children off from the platforms could leave them less prepared to navigate online risks and understand safe interaction in digital spaces.
“I want my son to grow up into a young Australian man who is resilient, who is responsible online, who can identify the dangers, and who is able to vet some of these things,” the mother told reporters.
The court fight comes as the federal government considers tightening the framework behind the ban. In June, the Australian government said it was looking at strengthening the laws after evidence suggested young children were still managing to stay on social media.
Under the current rules, the 10 targeted platforms can be hit with penalties of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (€28.1 million) if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove accounts held by young children.
Research has pointed to ongoing use despite the restrictions. A study published in the British Medical Journal in June reported that 85% of a group of Australian 12 to 17-year-olds were still using restricted platforms.
The government’s own research, released in March, found that seven in 10 underage children continued to hold accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok since December.
Communications Minister Anika Wells attended the proceedings and later told reporters the laws were being challenged head-on.
“We are here to defend a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy which is an Australian’s right, and particularly an Australian child’s right, to be free from harm, and we seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack,” Ms Wells said.
