Reddit takes Australia’s under-16 social media ban to the High Court — a landmark constitutional showdown

In one of the most significant legal challenges sparked by Australia’s pioneering under-16 social media ban, Reddit — the sprawling online discussion forum — has filed a High Court challenge arguing that the newly enacted law is unlawful, overly broad and inconsistent with fundamental rights under the Australian Constitution. The move adds a dramatic new chapter to the unfolding battle over how governments regulate the internet and protect children online.

A legal attack on landmark legislation

Just days after the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 came into force on 10 December 2025, Reddit lodged a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia seeking judicial review of the law’s application to its platform.

The legislation, which bars Australians under 16 from holding accounts on a list of major platforms and imposes fines of up to A$49.5 million for non-compliance, has been touted by the federal government as a world-leading measure to reduce harms associated with youth social media use.

But Reddit argues in court documents that the law has been wrongly applied to its platform and that — as drafted — it infringes constitutional protections, including the implied freedom of political communication. It also claims that the requirements could force “intrusive and potentially insecure” age-verification processes on all users — adults as well as minors — even where those measures are neither necessary nor proportionate.

The company’s core arguments

In its High Court filing, Reddit contends several key points:

• Misclassification as social media: Reddit maintains it is primarily an online forum for adult users, centred on topic-based discussions rather than real-time social networking of the type the government intended to regulate.
• Constitutional concerns: The company says the law unduly restricts the implied constitutional freedom of political communication, particularly for older teens approaching voting age whose engagement with public affairs often begins on platforms like Reddit.
• Privacy and verification issues: Reddit argues that the legislative design — which mandates platforms take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts — could have unintended privacy consequences by compelling platforms to adopt broad age-verification systems that affect all users.
• Patchwork of application: The company described the ban as creating an inconsistent legal landscape in which some services are included and others excluded without a clear rationale, undermining effective child protection goals.

While Reddit says it will comply with the law as it stands, it insists that its legal challenge is aimed at clarifying the law’s scope and ensuring it is lawful, proportionate and constitutionally sound.

Government response — firm defence

The Albanese government has responded to Reddit’s legal move with defiance. Health Minister Mark Butler described the challenge as “no surprise” and rejected the platform’s claims about free speech and privacy. He argued that the ban is about protecting young Australians, comparing Reddit’s position to past challenges by entrenched industries resisting regulation.

A government spokesperson emphasised that the legislation was crafted with the safety of children at its core and that policymakers would defend it “every step of the way” in court. The government’s stance reflects broad parliamentary support for the law, which was passed after extensive debate and public interest discussions.

Broader legal context — other challenges in play

Reddit’s challenge comes alongside other legal actions against the under-16 social media ban. In early December, the **High Court agreed to hear a case brought by two teenagers backed by the Digital Freedom Project, which similarly argues the law breaches constitutional protections on political communication.

Some legal experts suggest these cases could shape the future of online regulation in Australia, particularly on how far Parliament can go in restricting access to digital platforms based on age, and how such measures interact with implied rights in the Constitution.

Industry and user reaction

The legal challenge has sparked an immediate reaction among digital rights advocates and platform users. Supporters of Reddit’s legal action argue that children and teenagers benefit from access to forums where news, debate and community support are shared — and that blanket bans may undermine civic engagement and free expression without adequately addressing the harms they seek to mitigate.

Critics of the law, and by extension the legal challenge, counter that such regulatory efforts are necessary to curb the well-documented negative effects of social media on youth mental health and wellbeing. They argue any constitutional concerns must be balanced against the government’s responsibility to protect vulnerable populations.

What’s next — a long road ahead

Legal analysts expect the High Court process to unfold over months, if not longer, with hearings potentially extending into early to mid-2026. The key questions the court will grapple with include:

• Whether the law’s scope and definitions properly reflect its stated purpose.
• Whether age-based restrictions of this kind proportionately address the harms they seek to prevent.
• Whether the legislation unlawfully burdens freedom of political communication under the Constitution.

A ruling from the High Court could have wide-ranging implications — not only for Reddit, but for how Australia and other countries approach digital age limits, child protection online, and the balance between regulation and fundamental rights.

Why this matters

Australia’s social media age restriction is a global first, and the battle now playing out in the High Court reflects the difficulty of translating ambitious regulatory goals into legally robust frameworks in an age of rapid technological change. As tech platforms, users and governments grapple with this new frontier, Reddit’s challenge shines a spotlight on the deep constitutional, legal and societal questions at the heart of the digital age.