The platforms covered by the ban currently include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. Photograph: AAP View image in fullscreen The platforms covered by the ban currently include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. Photograph: AAP Social media ban Australia’s social media ban ‘ill-thought-out’, Reddit argues in high court challenge Reddit challenges ban on grounds it impinges implied freedom of political communications for teens
Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast
Prefer the Guardian on Google The Australian government’s rush to pass the under-16s social media ban legislation in 2024 led to “ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation” that has since been narrowed after Reddit sued the government, lawyers for the social media company told the high court on Tuesday.
Reddit, one of the top 10 websites visited in the world, has challenged the teen social media ban on the grounds it impinges the implied freedom of political communication for under-16s.
In oral arguments before the high court on Tuesday, Reddit’s counsel, Perry Herzfeld SC, argued in the years leading up to the ban legislation, a 2021 parliamentary inquiry on social media had not recommended introducing a ban, with the eSafety commissioner warning the inquiry at the time it would be a “blunt force approach”.
When the government announced the ban in 2024, Reddit argued the legislation was introduced and passed within a week, with only 24 hours of submissions allowed.
Read more “A process of this kind is likely to lead to ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation,” Herzfeld argued.
After eSafety announced Reddit would be included in the ban , and Reddit did not accept it met the definition of a social media platform under the law, the company announced the high court challenge to the law in late 2025.
In March this year, the communications minister, Anika Wells, introduced new rules as part of the legislation that defines additional requirements for social media companies to meet the definition including logged-in features, recommendation features or endless scroll.
Herzfeld argued the ban does not address those factors specifically by a broad ban on under-16s accounts, and has argued it would be able to under different legislation – pointing to the digital duty of care legislation currently before the parliament.
Outside the court, Wells told reporters she wasn’t the minister at the time the legislation passed, but said the government’s arguments in response would be made in court.
Since the ban came into effect in December last year, more than 5 million user accounts the platforms understand belong to people aged under 16 across 10 platforms have been suspended or deactivated.
The platforms currently covered by the ban include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads.
The case centres around whether the effect of the ban limiting political communications is justified by what the government has said is a “credible risk” of harms such as mental health issues, sleeping problems and eating disorder issues.
Herzfeld told the court on Tuesday the ban prevents teenagers from actively engaging in political communications through subreddits such as r/Australia. While they can still view the content without an account, they can’t make their own posts, comment or upvote content, Reddit argued.
Justice Jacqueline G…