Reddit has launched a constitutional challenge against Australia’s groundbreaking social media ban for children under 16.
The legal battle began just 48 hours after the world’s first legislation of its kind went into effect, setting up a clash between free speech advocates and child protection efforts that could reshape digital rights globally.
Within two days of Australia’s controversial under-16 social media restrictions becoming law, Reddit filed suit in the country’s High Court. The platform argues the ban violates Australia’s implied freedom of political communication, creating what they call an “illogical patchwork” of restricted and unrestricted platforms.
Reddit isn’t fighting this battle alone. The company joins two Australian teenagers who filed their own constitutional challenge last month, backed by the Digital Freedom Project. Both legal challenges center on the same claim: the law unconstitutionally blocks young people from participating in political discourse online.
The stakes are enormous. The ban began on Dec. 10, and 10 major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Reddit face fines up to $32.9 million if they fail to prevent under-16s from holding accounts.
Reddit’s view
Reddit’s legal strategy goes beyond constitutional arguments—they’re questioning whether they should be classified as social media at all. The platform argues it operates fundamentally differently from traditional social networks, describing itself as “a forum primarily for adults without traditional social media features.”
The company’s argument highlights a critical flaw in how the ban was implemented. While Reddit gets swept up in restrictions, gaming platforms like Roblox—which police warn are being used to groom children—remain exempt because their “significant purpose” is gaming rather than social interaction.
Reddit emphasizes this isn’t about protecting profits from young users. The platform states it doesn’t market to or target advertising toward children under 18, and under-16s “are not a substantial market segment for Reddit.” Instead, they argue the law forces “intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors.”
The verification dilemma reveals the law’s broader privacy implications. Platforms must implement age-checking systems but cannot compel users to provide government IDs for privacy reasons. This creates a technological puzzle that is like a game of Whack-a-Mole, as new platforms emerge.
Government doubles down
Australia’s government isn’t backing down from what they see as a historic child protection measure. Health Minister Mark Butler delivered a scathing response to Reddit’s challenge, comparing the company to Big Tobacco and declaring their lawsuit aims “to protect the profits that they make at the expense of the mental health of young people.”
Butler’s confidence reflects the law’s overwhelming public support. The policy has won backing from high-profile figures including Oprah, Prince Harry, and Meghan. More than a million minors are expected to lose their social media accounts under the new restrictions.
The constitutional challenges are already creating ripple effects. The eSafety Commissioner has demanded data from all 10 affected platforms on deactivated youth accounts since the law took effect. Meanwhile, downloads of alternative apps have surged—Yope skyrocketed 251% and Lemon8 jumped 88% since Monday alone.
The High Court will hold preliminary hearings in late February, setting up what could become a landmark case for digital rights. The outcome will likely influence similar efforts worldwide, as governments from Florida to the European Union experiment with their own social media restrictions for children.
A new Stanford-led study is challenging the idea that political toxicity is simply an unavoidable element of online culture.
