Reddit is challenging the Albanese government’s ban in high court, arguing legislation is ‘ill-thought-out’ and ‘over-broad’
The Australian government has rejected Reddit’s high court claim that its under-16s social media ban is a “blunt tool” to reduce harms experienced by teens, arguing it only represents an “indirect and modest” burden on the ability of teens affected to engage in political communications.
In its challenge to the ban on Tuesday, Reddit had argued that the government’s rush to pass the ban in 2024 had led to an “ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation” that the government had since had to narrow down with rules written by the communications minister in 2026 for design features on platforms that teens should be kept away from.
Reddit, one of the top 10 websites visited in the world, has challenged the teen social media ban on the grounds it impinges the implied freedom of political communication for under-16s.
Reddit had highlighted 2021 comments from the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, that a ban on accounts was a “blunt tool” for achieving the aims of reducing harms experienced by teenagers on social media.
In the court on Wednesday, government barrister Stephen Lloyd SC argued the legislation was designed at the outset to expect rules to be set by the minister at a later date as required, and should be considered by the court as how it is operating today, rather than when the legislation passed the parliament.
“Rule making was part of the scheme from the outset,” Lloyd said.
Lloyd said the ban was aimed at the design features that keep people engaged on social media, such as endless scroll, likes and comments, personalised recommendations and push notifications, and the “credible risk” that those features lead to harms for under 16s, including sleep issues, depression, anxiety and suicide ideation.
He said it was “not a blunt instrument but … designed to minimise the adverse effects of these features” which are experienced by users who hold accounts on the platforms.
Reddit allows users to read the site without an account, but Lloyd argued that the features such as around personalisation were limited to those who hold accounts.
Lloyd flagged the hypothetical argument that if Reddit were to offer a “Reddit Kids” version without the harmful features, then teens under 16 could regain the ability to engage in political communications online as that app would not be subject to the ban. He said, however, any such version would still require Reddit to assess the ages of users.
Since the ban came into effect in December last year, more than 5 million user accounts the platforms understand belong to people aged under 16 across 10 platforms have been suspended or deactivated.
The platforms currently covered by the ban include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Kick, X, Twitch and Threads. Apart from YouTube Kids, none of the other platforms have been able to obtain an exemption for a version of their site specifically designed for teens.
Lloyd said the government accepts the ban is an effective burden on the ability of under-16s to politically communicate, but said it was narrow, indirect and modest.
As the ban targets the platforms to remove accounts, there is no penalty for a child holding an account, Lloyd said. The ban also does not depend on the political character of the information a child might seek to communicate on the platforms, as it was “viewpoint neutral”.
“[It would be] harder to justify if it was [allowed] for Labor party children only,” Lloyd said.
It was also narrow to a small number of ages as the platforms’ own terms of service limit access to users over 13, Lloyd said. Children could still also access services not in the ban, as well as material on Reddit and YouTube without an account, Lloyd said.
The hearing is due to conclude on Wednesday afternoon.
