Australia‘s government has defended its world-first ban on social media accounts for children under 16 before the country’s High Court, arguing the restriction is a modest and justified step to protect young people — as challengers argued it unlawfully burdens their freedom of political communication.
The two-day hearing before all seven High Court justices concluded on Wednesday 4 November, after opening on 3 November. The court adjourned and reserved its decision, which is expected in the coming months. The ban remains in force while the judges consider the case.
What the government argued
Government lawyers described the law as a limited, viewpoint-neutral restriction rather than a broad ban on communication. Stephen Lloyd, acting for the Commonwealth, told the court the burden on political communication was indirect and modest in extent, because under-16s can still access some online content without holding an account.
The government also set out the harms it says platform design features pose to children, including addictive use, harm to sleep and attention, depression and suicidal ideation, worsened ADHD symptoms and eating disorders. Its case is that reducing exposure to those features is a necessary harm-minimisation measure, and that the benefits outweigh the restriction on teenagers’ ability to take part in political discussion online.
Who challenged the law, and why
Two challenges were heard together. The first was brought by the Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project, which argues the law improperly removes the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution from millions of young Australians. The second was brought by Reddit, the US online forum, which also raised privacy and enforcement concerns and contested aspects of how platforms are classified under the law.
Lawyers for the challengers argued the restriction was disproportionate to its benefits, and that it curbs young people’s ability to access information, communicate opinions and take part in public discussion. Communications Minister Anika Wells attended the proceedings, and has described the laws as under attack from the challengers.
What the ban actually does
The law, which took effect in December 2025 under amendments to Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, requires certain platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. It covers ten major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Kick, X and YouTube.
Children and caregivers face no punishment under the law; the obligations and potential penalties fall on the platforms. Government data published in July 2026 said about five million social media accounts had been closed since the ban came into force. At the same time, the eSafety Commissioner’s figures cited in court coverage show many teenagers still access social media: four in ten children aged 10 to 15 remained active three months after the ban began, down from 52 per cent before it.
Why the world is watching
Australia was the first country to impose a nationwide minimum age of 16 for social media accounts, and other governments considering similar rules are watching the outcome closely. If the High Court upholds the law, the model is likely to be cited abroad; if it strikes the law down in whole or in part, Australia would need to redesign a flagship online-safety policy almost a year after it took effect.
The case also sits inside a wider legal fight. Meta’s Facebook and Instagram face a separate Australian class action alleging addictive design features harmed children and teenagers, a reminder that the court challenge is only one front in the debate over platforms and young users.
What happens next
There is no ruling date yet. The judges will weigh whether the harm done by limiting children’s political engagement outweighs the harm the government says social media platforms cause. Until they rule, the ban stays in place, platforms must keep enforcing it, and under-16s in Australia remain unable to hold accounts on the listed platforms.
Sources
Reuters via The Express Tribune: Australia social media teen ban a ‘modest’ step, says government in top court challenge — https://tribune.com.pk/story/2638633/australia-social-media-teen-ban-a-modest-step-says-govt-in-top-court-challenge?amp=1
Al Jazeera: Australian government defends social media ban for under-16s in court — https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/11/4/australian-government-defends-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-in-court
Associated Press via KCAU: Australia argues in court that social media ban is needed to protect children’s brains — https://www.kcau9.com/news/tech-news/ap-australia-argues-in-court-that-social-media-ban-is-needed-to-protect-childrens-brains/
AAP: Social media ban creates ‘worst outcome’, Reddit argues — https://aapnews.aap.com.au/news/lawmakers-hit-back-in-legal-fight-over-social-media-ban
Frequently asked questions
Is Australia’s under-16 social media ban still in force? Yes. It remains in force while the High Court considers the challenge, with its decision reserved.
Which platforms does the ban cover? Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Kick, X and YouTube.
When will the High Court rule? No date has been announced; a ruling is expected in the coming months.
