ع
Hearings opened before all seven High Court justices in Canberra on November 3, 2026, combining challenges from the Digital Freedom Project and Reddit against the world-first law that prohibits major platforms from allowing children under 16 to hold accounts. Reddit’s counsel Perry Herzfeld told the court the legislation represented a profound restriction on political debate by preventing young people from creating or responding to content on key modern communication channels. The ban, which took effect in late 2025, covers platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads, according to multiple reports including from Reuters. The Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales parliamentarian John Ruddick, similarly contends the law burdens the implied constitutional freedom of political communication for millions of young Australians.
The government introduced the ban last December as part of broader online safety reforms, arguing it shields children from harmful content and addictive algorithms, a position Communications Minister Anika Wells has defended against what she termed ideological attacks. Herzfeld argued before the judges that the law was ill-thought-out and inept because it failed to target specific harms, did not restrict other online spaces such as gaming sites where cyberbullying occurs, and overlooked advice from the eSafety Commissioner against a blunt-force approach. A 2021 parliamentary inquiry had not recommended such a prohibition, Herzfeld added, while the rushed passage of the bill with minimal consultation time led to over-broad measures that were later narrowed after legal action. The SMH reported that the ban left teenagers with limited avenues for expression, likening it to shouting views from a street corner.
Since the law entered force, the eSafety Commissioner has found through studies that most teenagers below the age cutoff continue accessing social media despite enforcement efforts, Reuters reported. In response, authorities doubled maximum fines for non-compliance to A$99 million and granted the commissioner expanded discovery powers while preparing enforcement lawsuits against non-compliant platforms. The Guardian noted the government amended definitions in March 2026 to better specify criteria such as logged-in features, recommendation algorithms or endless scroll functions after Reddit contested its inclusion. These adjustments followed the initial challenge filed by the company in late 2025.
Two Sydney teenagers, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, originally joined the Digital Freedom Project case as plaintiffs but withdrew earlier this year, though Jones planned to attend the proceedings. The group maintains the policy should be replaced with alternatives including enhanced digital literacy programs, age-appropriate platform features and privacy-protecting age verification technologies. Outside court, Ruddick described the legislation as part of a censorship crusade by the Albanese government, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Reddit has stated it supports harm minimisation goals but believes the current approach misses the mark, a stance echoed in its submissions that platforms serve as common sources of news and political information including through its Ask Me Anything sessions with politicians.
The two-day hearing is expected to conclude on November 4, 2026, with a decision reserved for a later date that could determine the fate of the policy and influence similar debates internationally. ABC News reported the cases centre on whether the restrictions on under-16s outweigh the law’s protective intent in the context of Australia’s implied constitutional protections. The ban has already resulted in more than five million account suspensions across the 10 platforms, according to statements from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cited across reporting. Legal observers note the outcome will test the boundaries of government regulation over digital spaces while balancing child welfare against free expression rights.
Additional context from parliamentary records shows prior inquiries emphasised targeted safety improvements rather than outright age bans, a point Herzfeld highlighted to underscore what he called the legislation’s failure to align with evidence-based recommendations from the eSafety Commissioner. The challenges do not dispute the harms associated with social media but question whether the blanket prohibition represents a proportionate response under constitutional standards. Government lawyers are expected to counter that the measure advances legitimate aims of protecting a vulnerable population without unduly burdening protected communications.
