Reddit challenges Australia’s under-16 social media ban in High Court

Reddit has mounted a constitutional challenge to Australia’s landmark ban on social media access for children under 16, arguing before the High Court that the legislation unlawfully curtails political communication and wrongly categorises the platform as a conventional social media service.

In proceedings filed with the country’s apex court, the San Francisco-based company contends that the law, which came into force on December 10, impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication recognised under Australia’s constitution. Reddit submits that by preventing minors from participating in online forums where public affairs and political matters are routinely discussed, the legislation restricts the ability of young Australians to engage in civic discourse and develop political views.

The application names the Commonwealth of Australia and the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, as defendants. It marks the second legal challenge to the regime, following a suit lodged last month by two teenagers associated with an Australian libertarian organisation.

Australia’s new framework establishes the world’s first legally enforced nationwide age restriction on social media use. Under the law, platforms are required to take reasonable steps to prevent access by users under 16, failing which they may be exposed to civil penalties of up to A$49.5 million. While the regime does not impose sanctions on children or their parents, it places the compliance burden squarely on digital platforms.

Reddit, which counts Australia among its largest international markets, argues that the ban should be declared invalid in its entirety. In the alternative, it submits that even if the legislation is upheld, Reddit should be exempted on the basis that it does not fall within the statutory definition of a social media service.

In its High Court filing, the company draws a distinction between Reddit’s structure and that of other platforms. It characterises Reddit as a network of topic-based forums that prioritise anonymity, text-based discussion and community moderation, rather than personal profiles, algorithmic feeds or influencer-driven content. On that basis, Reddit argues that it operates more as a discussion platform or message board than as a traditional social media site.

The company further submits that the law raises serious privacy concerns, particularly in relation to age verification mechanisms that platforms may be compelled to deploy in order to demonstrate compliance. According to Reddit, such requirements risk collecting sensitive personal data and could have a chilling effect on participation in online political debate.

While acknowledging that Parliament may legislate to protect children from online harm, Reddit contends that a blanket prohibition on access to entire platforms goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve that objective. It argues that the measure is insufficiently tailored and fails to account for the educational and civic value of online discussion spaces for adolescents approaching voting age.