Reddit sues Australia in High Court to overturn child social media ban, citing free political communication
Reddit has filed a lawsuit in Australia’s High Court seeking to strike down the country’s new nationwide ban on social media access for people under 16, calling the measure an unconstitutional intrusion on political discourse and a threat to online privacy.
- Advertisement -
The San Francisco-based platform, which counts Australia among its major markets, asked the court to declare the law invalid on grounds that it interferes with the implied freedom of political communication in Australia’s constitution, according to a 12-page filing. The suit, lodged two days into the policy’s rollout, names the Commonwealth of Australia and Communications Minister Anika Wells as defendants. It is the second legal challenge to the ban after two teenagers representing an Australian libertarian group filed suit last month.
Reddit also argues that, even if the law is upheld, it should be exempt because it does not meet the statute’s definition of a social media platform.
Australia began enforcing the world’s first nationwide, legally mandated age minimum for social media on Dec. 10. Platforms are required to block underage users or risk penalties of up to A$49.5 million (€28 million). Underage users and their caregivers face no penalties. Major companies including Meta’s Instagram, Alphabet’s YouTube and TikTok opposed the law for more than a year but ultimately said they would comply.
To meet the new obligations, platforms have turned to age inference tools that analyze online behavior and age estimation methods that can include a selfie. Privacy advocates have warned these approaches could expand data collection, and Reddit echoed those concerns in a statement published alongside its court application.
“The law carries some serious privacy and political expression issues for everyone on the internet,” the company said. “So, we are filing an application to have the law reviewed.” In its filing, Reddit argued that barring people under 16 from social platforms will impede political discourse central to democratic participation: “Australian citizens under the age of 16 will, within years if not months, become electors. The choices to be made by those citizens will be informed by political communication in which they engage prior to the age of 18.”
Australia’s government defended the policy and vowed to contest the challenge. A spokesperson for Minister Wells said the government was “on the side of Australian parents and kids, not platforms” and would “stand firm to protect young Australians from experiencing harm on social media.”
Health Minister Mark Butler said Reddit filed the lawsuit to protect profits rather than young people’s political expression. “We will fight this action every step of the way,” he told reporters in Brisbane, adding, “It is action we saw time and time again by Big Tobacco against tobacco control and we are seeing it now by some social media or big tech giants.”
The case puts the spotlight on the scope of Australia’s implied freedom of political communication, a court-recognized limit on government power rather than a personal right, and whether a blanket age restriction can withstand that constitutional test. The High Court will also weigh Reddit’s contention that its platform is structurally distinct from conventional social media as defined in the law.
No hearing date has been set. For now, companies must keep enforcing the age restrictions or face substantial fines, while legal questions about privacy, the contours of political speech and the responsibilities of global platforms await the High Court’s judgment.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
