Reddit has launched a legal challenge against Australia’s under-16 social media ban, calling the legislation poorly designed and restrictive. The company argues that the law limits young people’s participation in political discussions and fails to address online harm effectively.
The challenge, brought by Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group, is now before Australia’s High Court. The case marks the first legal challenge to the country’s social media restrictions, which took effect in late 2025.
The law prevents major social media platforms from allowing children under 16 to hold accounts. It gained support from parents, although technology companies opposed the restrictions.
Reddit Challenges Australia’s Social Media Restrictions
Reddit and the advocacy group want the High Court to declare the legislation invalid. Their argument centres on Australia’s constitutionally implied freedom of political expression.
Reddit also maintains that the restrictions should not apply to its platform. The company argues that it lacks certain features commonly associated with social media, including dependence on friend networks.
Representing Reddit, lawyer Perry Herzfeld told the seven-judge panel that the ban prevents under-16s from creating or responding to online content. He described these restrictions as a major limitation on political participation.
“That is a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia,” Herzfeld told the court.
“There is a very substantial restriction on what young people can now do.”
Why Reddit Calls the Law ‘Ill Thought Out’
Although Reddit supports efforts to minimise online harm, Herzfeld argued that the legislation fails to achieve its intended purpose.
He described the law as “ill thought out” and “inept”, questioning its approach to keeping minors away from harmful online experiences.
According to Reddit’s arguments, the legislation does not require any specific measure to prevent under-16s from accessing platforms. Furthermore, it leaves other online services, including gaming websites, outside comparable restrictions despite potential cyberbullying risks.
Herzfeld also highlighted the limits of account-based restrictions. While users generally need accounts to create or comment on social media content, substantial amounts of material remain accessible without logging in.
Australian Government Vows to Defend the Ban
The Australian government and Communications Minister Anika Wells, who is a named defendant, have pledged to defend the legislation.
Speaking outside the court, Wells said she would respect its decision while continuing to oppose the legal challenge. The High Court’s decision cannot be appealed.
“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 said.
“We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack.”
Could the Case Influence Other Countries?
The outcome could have implications beyond Australia, where lawmakers introduced the restrictions to protect young people’s mental and physical health.
Countries including Britain and Malaysia are also rolling out similar measures. Consequently, a successful challenge could encourage further legal opposition from affected technology companies and potentially slow wider adoption.
The court’s ruling could therefore shape the debate over how governments balance child protection, online safety and freedom of expression.
For the latest updates, visit and follow The Truth International website (www.thetruthinternational.com) and subscribe to the YouTube Channel.
