Teens Launch High Court Challenge to Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban

Two Australian teenagers have filed a constitutional challenge in the Digital Freedom Project, taking their fight to the High Court of Australia against the country’s soon-to-take-effect social media ban on users under 16.

What’s the ban — and who’s challenging it

Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, slated to start on 10 December 2025, major social media platforms — including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and others — must ensure that users under 16 cannot hold accounts. Platforms that fail to comply may face penalties of up to A$49.5 million.

Two 15-year-olds — Noah Jones and Macy Neyland — are the named plaintiffs in the challenge. The Digital Freedom Project argues the ban infringes an implied constitutional protection: the right to freedom of political communication. According to their claim, the law silences young people on digital platforms — a place many use to discuss social issues, organise and express political opinions.

Government stands firm despite legal bid

Even as the High Court action was filed, the federal government reaffirmed its commitment to enforce the ban on schedule.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said the government would not be “intimidated by legal challenges,” maintaining the law aims to protect children from online harms such as cyberbullying, harmful content, and negative mental-health effects.

The legal case: What the challengers say

• “Disproportionate restriction”: The challenge contends the ban is a blunt instrument that blocks all under-16s from social media — even those using it responsibly or for civic and political engagement.
• Undermining digital participation: Supporters warn the ban may push teens toward unregulated platforms, fake accounts or VPNs — potentially reducing online safety rather than improving it.
• Constitutional argument: In the absence of a formal free-speech guarantee in Australian constitutional law, the case pivots on the implied right to political communication — a doctrine that permits expression about public affairs.

The Legal claim argues that digital platforms are now critical venues for political participation and discourse — excluding a large demographic (under-16s) undermines democratic inclusion.

What’s at stake — for teens, platforms, and democracy

If the High Court accepts the challenge, the ban could be delayed or struck down — allowing under-16s to retain access to their social media accounts. For the hundreds of thousands of Australian youths affected, this would mean preserving a key outlet for social connection, expression, and political engagement.

For platforms and regulators, a successful challenge could force reconsideration of how to balance child-safety goals with rights to communication and privacy — potentially shaping global debates on youth access to digital media.

But if the ban is upheld, social media companies will need to complete age-verification or account deactivation by the December deadline — and under-16 accounts will disappear regardless of user wishes.

What happens now — and what to watch

• The case will proceed before the High Court. It’s unclear if the plaintiffs will immediately seek an injunction to delay enforcement pending the court’s decision.
• Meanwhile, platforms are already preparing compliance: some have begun notifying users suspected of being under 16 to download or delete their data.
• The wider public debate — on youth safety vs. free speech — is likely to intensify as other countries observe the outcomes, possibly influencing future international rules on minors and social media.

Bottom line

The High Court challenge marks a dramatic escalation in the battle over online regulation and teens’ digital rights. At its core, the case raises profound questions: Can the government decide that under-16s should be largely excluded from modern public discourse? And if so — what does that mean for a generation growing up online?

For now, the countdown to 10 December 2025 — when the law takes effect — continues. Inside the court system, the quiet debate begins; for millions of Australian teens, the outcome could shape their access to voice, connection, and community online.