Reddit and libertarian group urge Australia's High Court to strike down under-16 social media ban

As of 2:56 p.m. ET, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026

Update (Nov. 4, 2026, 2:56 p.m. ET): This story has been updated with the second and final day of the hearing. The court has reserved its decision. Reporting from the first day follows.

Hearing ends; decision reserved

The two-day hearing before all seven justices ended Wednesday, Canberra time, and the court reserved its decision, Australian Associated Press reported. A verdict is expected in the coming months, Al Jazeera reported, citing Reuters and AP. No date has been set.

Government lawyers told the court the ban was necessary to protect developing brains, The Associated Press reported. Barrister Joanna Davidson SC listed risks linked to platform design features, including addictive use, poor sleep, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, worse disordered eating and stronger ADHD symptoms, AAP reported. Barrister Stephen Lloyd SC said any burden on political communication was "indirect in nature and modest in extent," according to AAP.

In reply, Reddit's barrister, Perry Herzfeld SC, said the law allows children no accounts at all, not even restricted ones. He called that the "worst possible outcome," because children lose access to safe content but can still use adults' accounts, AAP reported. Reddit also argued it should not be on the list of 10 age-restricted platforms, Al Jazeera reported. Adrian Maroya, for the Digital Freedom Project, argued that if under-16s are protected by the implied freedom of political communication, social media is central to how they communicate, AAP reported.

All state and territory solicitors-general sided with the federal government, AAP reported. A July report by the eSafety Commissioner, which enforces the ban, said more than 5 million accounts had been removed or deactivated, but about four in 10 children aged 10 to 15 were still active on social media three months after the ban began, down from 52%, according to AAP.

Day one, Nov. 3

Australia's High Court began hearing a major legal challenge to the country's ban on social media accounts for children under 16 on Tuesday in Canberra. Reddit and the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project argued the law is unconstitutional. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government was there to defend a child's "right ... to be free from harm."

The full bench is hearing the two challenges together on Nov. 3 and 4, according to The Guardian, the BBC and ABC News. The hearing ended Wednesday, Canberra time, as noted above. The court has not ruled.

What the challengers argue

The challengers argue the law places an unjustified burden on the freedom of political communication that is implied in Australia's Constitution, because it keeps young people out of civic debate.

Reddit's lawyer, Perry Herzfeld SC, told the court that the government's rush to pass the law in 2024 produced "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation," The Guardian reported. He said the bill went through Parliament within a week, with only 24 hours allowed for public submissions.

Herzfeld said teenagers without an account can still read forums such as r/Australia but cannot post, comment or upvote. He pointed to alternatives such as a digital duty-of-care bill now before Parliament, according to The Guardian.

Justice Jacqueline Gleeson raised doubts about one part of that argument. She said the "vast majority of teens the vast majority of time" do not engage in politics, The Guardian reported.

Reddit is also asking the court to declare that it is not an "age-restricted social media platform" under the law, ABC News reported. The company says it is complying while the case goes on. "As we challenge this law in court, we'll continue to comply with it and advocate for more effective youth safety measures," said Adam Collins, Reddit's chief communications officer.

The Digital Freedom Project, led by Libertarian New South Wales MP John Ruddick, adopted Reddit's arguments. In court, it argued only that it has standing to sue on behalf of its members, The Guardian reported.

The government's case

"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," Wells told reporters outside the court, according to the BBC. "We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack." She called the question of what society will accept from tech platforms "the most compelling policy question of our time."

Government barrister Joanna Davidson SC told the court that features such as autoplay video, recommendation systems and default notifications are "broadly shared" across the 10 platforms, including Reddit, The Guardian reported. She said the platforms use these features to maximize engagement and revenue, and that together they can "compound" the risk of harms such as lost sleep and depression.

The Commonwealth also argues that the implied freedom protects "electors," meaning people eligible to vote, so any burden on under-16s is indirect, modest and justified, ABC News reported. Several state and territory attorneys-general filed submissions supporting the federal government. South Australia's premier, Peter Malinauskas, told ABC News Breakfast: "No one's banning the internet. What we're banning is social media platforms that choose what kids see and when."

How the ban works

The law took effect Dec. 10, 2025. It requires Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Reddit, Kick and Twitch to take "reasonable steps" to keep Australians under 16 from having accounts. Platforms face fines of up to A$99 million (about US$70 million) for serious or repeated breaches, though none has been fined so far, the BBC reported. The Guardian put the number of suspended or deactivated accounts at more than 5 million. ABC News said nearly 5 million.

Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck told ABC News the government has a strong case. He said a loss might mean only "a technical breach that can be fixed with some tweaks in the legislation."