Reddit has challenged Australia’s ban on social media accounts for children under 16, describing the legislation as poorly designed and an excessive restriction on young people’s participation in political debate.
The online discussion platform and a libertarian advocacy group have taken the case to Australia’s High Court, arguing that the law violates the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
The legal challenge, which began on Tuesday, is the first major court test of Australia’s world-first social media restriction, which took effect in late 2025 amid concerns over the impact of online platforms on children’s mental and physical health.
Under the law, major social media platforms are prohibited from allowing users below the age of 16 to hold accounts. Companies that fail to comply face substantial financial penalties.
Representing Reddit, lawyer Perry Herzfeld told a seven-judge panel that the restriction prevents under-16s from creating content or responding to discussions on what he described as one of the most important communication channels in the modern world.
He argued that the law amounted to a “very profound restriction on political debate in Australia” and significantly limited the ability of young people to participate in public discussions.
Although Reddit supported the government’s objective of reducing online harm to children, Herzfeld argued that the legislation was ineffective and had been poorly designed.
He described the law as “ill thought out” and “inept”, saying it failed to prescribe specific measures for keeping underage users off the platforms while leaving other online services, including gaming websites where cyberbullying can occur, outside its restrictions.
Herzfeld also argued that Reddit should not be covered by the law because it lacked some features traditionally associated with social media platforms, particularly reliance on networks of friends.
He told the court that much of Reddit’s content could be accessed without an account, meaning the restriction would not necessarily prevent minors from viewing material on the platform.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law invalid on constitutional grounds. Reddit is also seeking an exemption, arguing that its platform does not fall within the category of services the legislation was designed to regulate.
The Australian government, however, has maintained that it will defend the legislation.
See also: Putin Orders Private Data Centres to Reserve 10% Capacity for Russia
Government lawyer Joanna Davidson told the court that children were more vulnerable than adults to the addictive features of social media because their brains were not yet fully developed. She is expected to continue presenting the government’s defence on Wednesday.
Australia’s social media ban has faced questions over its effectiveness since implementation. Studies, including research by the country’s eSafety Commissioner, have found that most teenagers below the age of 16 continued to access social media platforms months after the restriction took effect.
In response to compliance concerns, the government doubled the maximum penalty for companies that violate the law to A$99m ($69.5m) and expanded the eSafety Commissioner’s investigative powers.
Authorities have also said they are preparing enforcement action against some of the biggest social media companies.
Communications Minister Anika Wells, who is named as a defendant in the case, said outside the court that the government would respect the judges’ decision but would continue defending the law.
She described the measure as an effort to protect children from online harm and said the government would resist what she called a sustained ideological attack on the policy.
A ruling against the government could create a major obstacle for countries considering similar restrictions on children’s access to social media, as lawmakers in Britain, Malaysia and other jurisdictions explore measures to address online safety concerns.

