By Peter Hobson
CANBERRA, Nov 3 (Reuters) – Australia’s world-first teen social media ban was “ill thought out” and amounted to a “profound restriction on political debate”, a lawyer for messaging platform Reddit told the country’s top court in the first legal challenge to the law.
Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group have gone to the High Court to contest the Australian law, which bans large social media platforms from letting under-16s have an account and took effect in late 2025 amid support from parents and opposition from the tech firms.
The plaintiffs said the law should be declared invalid because it violates an implied freedom of political expression in the country’s constitution. Reddit added that the law should not apply to it anyway because it does not have some features that are central to social media, including a reliance on friend networks.
A successful challenge could usher in more opposition from affected companies and slow a global uptake of similar policies as lawmakers from Britain to Malaysia roll out the measures in an effort to protect youth mental and physical health.
The Australian government and its communications minister Anika Wells, a named defendant, have said they will defend the law.
Addressing the court, Perry Herzfeld, for Reddit, said barring under-16s from holding social media accounts stopped them from creating or responding to content on what he called the most important means of communication in the modern world.
“That is a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia,” Herzfeld told the seven-judge panel.
“There is a very substantial restriction on what young people can now do.”
Reddit agreed with Australia’s harm-minimisation aim but the law failed to achieve it, Herzfeld said, terming the legislation “ill thought out” and “inept” since it did not call for any specific measure to keep out minors and failed to restrict other online services where cyberbullying took place, such as gaming websites.
While social media content could typically only be created or commented on by logged-in account-holders, vast amounts of material were visible to people with no account, he said.
“If the Commonwealth is worried about particular features (of social media), it should regulate the features, which it has not done,” he said.
Since the ban went live, multiple studies, including by Australian regulator the eSafety Commissioner, have found that most of the country’s teenagers under the cutoff age continue to use social media.
The government has since doubled the maximum fine for non-compliance to A$99 million ($69.5 million), given the eSafety Commissioner greater discovery powers, and said it is preparing an enforcement lawsuit against some of the biggest platforms.
Joanna Davidson, for the government, told the court that children were more vulnerable than adults to social media’s addictive features because their brains were not fully developed. She will continue presenting the defence case on Wednesday.
Speaking outside the court, communications minister Wells said she would respect its decision, which cannot be appealed, but would fight the challenge.
“We are here to defend a fundamental tenet of Australian democracy, which is an Australian’s right, and particularly an Australian child’s right, to be free from harm,” Wells said.
“We seek to defend that from sustained ideological attack.”
($1 = 1.4253 Australian dollars)
(Reporting by Peter Hobson; Writing by Byron Kaye; Editing by Saad Sayeed and Thomas Derpinghaus)
