High Court hears Australian social media ban for under-16s
Reddit and an advocacy group challenge the constitutionality of Australia’s ban on users under 16.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
Australia’s High Court began hearing two cases on Tuesday challenging the country’s social media ban for under-16s. The claimants say the law excessively restricts political communication and privacy; the government invokes the protection of children from online harm.
The law requires Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube to take reasonable steps to keep Australians under 16 off their platforms. The rules have applied since December 2025 and are now before the country’s highest court for the first time.
The cases were brought by the advocacy group Digital Freedom Project and Reddit. They argue that the law excludes young people from social and political debate. Reddit also disputes having to fall into the same category as other platforms and points to questions surrounding privacy and freedom of political expression.
According to AP, the High Court has combined the two cases into one special hearing. The news agency says seven judges are considering the arguments. The hearing lasts two days, according to AP, and ends on Wednesday.
According to Australian broadcaster ABC, nearly five million accounts on the ten affected platforms have been blocked since the law was introduced. At the same time, research cited by AP shows that far fewer minors lost access: government research reported in March that seven in ten underage users still had accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.
The government defends the law by citing the risks of features that encourage prolonged and repeated engagement. Platforms can be fined up to 49.5 million Australian dollars if they do not do enough to exclude young users. The government has announced that it may tighten the rules further.
The ruling could have consequences beyond Australia. Other countries are examining age limits and age verification for social media, while European rules place particular emphasis on platform responsibility and the protection of minors. The Australian court must now determine how much room the constitution allows for a general age limit and whether this approach is proportionate.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Australia requires ten social platforms to exclude users under 16.
- Reddit and Digital Freedom Project argue that the law restricts political communication and privacy.
- The Australian government says the measure is intended to protect children from online harm.
- The High Court is hearing the cases on 3 and 4 November 2026.
Left
Arguments The government may protect children, but a blanket exclusion could particularly affect vulnerable young people and their access to information, communities and political participation. Targeted action against harmful features and better enforcement are more appropriate than a broad ban.
Values Equal access, digital rights and protection from state power.
Consequences A blanket ban could reinforce exclusion and attempts to circumvent the rules, while harmful content would remain accessible outside accounts.
Centre
Arguments Protecting minors is legitimate, but the measure must demonstrably work, limit privacy intrusions and allow room for exceptions and review. Age verification, transparent evaluation and adjustment based on evidence are important.
Values Proportionality, feasibility and institutional oversight.
Consequences A ruling that partly upholds the law could create scope for more targeted rules without rejecting the entire approach.
Right
Arguments Platforms are designed to hold users’ attention for long periods and parents cannot manage those risks alone. The state may therefore set clear boundaries and hold companies financially accountable.
Values Protection of children, responsibility and order.
Consequences A too-cautious judicial approach could, from this perspective, mean that platforms put their business model above children’s welfare.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The core facts have been confirmed by ABC News and AP. The legal outcome and broader international consequences have been presented as uncertain or possible.
- confirmed Australia’s High Court has been hearing two cases since 3 November challenging the social media ban for under-16s. — ABC News and AP report that the hearing began on 3 November 2026. source
- confirmed The law applies to ten platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok, X and YouTube. — The platform list appears in ABC News and AP. source
- confirmed Nearly five million accounts have been blocked since the law was introduced. — ABC News gives this figure. source
- confirmed Platforms can face a fine of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars. — AP News cites this maximum amount. source
- uncertain The ruling could have consequences for other countries. — This is a journalistic inference; the ruling and international follow-up are not yet known. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the High Court has been hearing the two constitutional challenges since Tuesday. The ruling and the ultimate consequences for platforms remain unknown; figures on circumvention come from different studies.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „sociale media”
- RTL Nieuws — „sociale media”
- NOS — „sociale media”