Australia rushed through ‘ill-thought-out’ under-16s social media ban, Reddit argues as high court challenge begins

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 ten websites visited in the world, has challenged the under 16s social media ban on the grounds that it impinges the implied freedom of political communications for teens under 16.

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.

“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 that 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 that 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 accounts across ten platforms that those platforms believe to be aged under 16 have been suspended or deactivated.

The platforms covered by the ban currently 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 issues, and eating disorder issues among others.

Herzfeld told the court on Tuesday the burden on teens of the ban is limitations to actively engage 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 up vote content, Reddit argued.

Justice Jacqueline Gleeson expressed reservations when pointed to examples of high-profile teens being politically engaged in social media – such as 6News’ Leo Puglisi who began his news site at the age of 11.

Gleeson said the “vast majority of teens the vast majority of time” when under 16 do not engage in politics.

When asked whether teens were being limited in engaging in political communication on just those platforms covered by the ban, Herzfeld argued that the platforms offer teens a much wider audience compared to “shouting on the street” or being interviewed in the media.

The Digital Freedom Project – led by NSW libertarian MP John Ruddick, will also be heard challenging the case this week. He was joined outside the court this morning by the original plaintiff for the case – 16-year-old Noah Jones – and his mother, Renee, as well as One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.