High Court hears social media ban case

Two days of hearings commence at the Australian High Court on Tuesday regarding the constitutional validity of the nation's ban on social media use for children under 16. The legal challenge, filed by the Digital Freedom Project, argues that the policy infringes upon the right to free communication. A separate suit brought by Reddit will be heard jointly during the proceedings.

The ban took effect on 10 December 2025, following the introduction of sweeping online safety measures by the Australian government. The Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, initiated the case weeks before the legislation came into force. While original plaintiffs Noah Jones and Macy Neyland have withdrawn from the suit, Jones is scheduled to attend the initial hearing.

Reddit contends that the ban carries serious implications for privacy and political rights. In response to the legal threats, Communications Minister Anika Wells stated last November that the government would not be intimidated by big tech. She affirmed that the administration would stand firm on behalf of Australian parents.

The legislation requires ten specific platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from accessing their sites. These platforms include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, X, Kick, Threads, and Twitch. Companies face fines of up to A$99 million for serious or repeated breaches, though no penalties have been issued since the ban began. The eSafety Commissioner has opened investigations into alleged non-compliance by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.

Excluded from the mandate are WhatsApp, educational tools like Google Classroom and YouTube Kids, and online gaming sites such as Roblox and Discord. Meta, which owns three of the banned platforms, reported closing approximately 500,000 accounts in the days following the ban's implementation. Jones, who spoke to the BBC in November, argued that platforms should use resources to remove harmful content rather than avoiding government fines.

Critics describe the ban as a blunt instrument, suggesting efforts should focus on improving online safety rather than restricting access. Supporters maintain the policy protects children from harmful digital content. The High Court will now review whether the legislation aligns with constitutional protections for communication.