The Australian government has acknowledged that it introduced the world‑leading ban on social media for users under 16 before a scientific consensus existed linking social media use to mental‑health harms. It argues that the credible risks of addictive behaviour, disrupted sleep, depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation justify a precautionary protective measure.
The ban is now being challenged in the High Court by Reddit, one of two cases to be heard jointly before 2026. Reddit contends that the ban burdens the implied freedom of political communication and fails to address the risk of harm. It points out that some platforms are excluded, that design features the ban targets remain available to users without accounts, and that children under 16 continue to maintain or register new accounts after the ban took effect in December last year.
In its defence, the government stresses that uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people. It claims that the digital duty‑of‑care legislation it proposes would effectively require the same outcome as the ban, preventing children from having accounts that use the targeted design features. The submission states that the proper application of the duty would prevent children from having accounts that include those features.
The government also cites substantial practical action: nearly five million accounts were removed in December, and Reddit itself suspended 43,962 accounts between December and March. It has increased the powers of the eSafety commissioner and doubled the fines that can be imposed for non‑compliance to almost $100 million. NetChoice, the peak US body for tech companies, and the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation are also seeking to be heard in the case.
