The High Court of Australia began hearing arguments on Tuesday in two legal challenges to a law barring people younger than 16 from social media, in cases that may determine the fate of a ban that was closely watched and replicated around the world.
Over two days, the court will consider cases brought by an Australian digital rights advocacy group and the U.S.-based discussion platform Reddit. Both plaintiffs contend that the law infringes on young people’s right to political participation by restricting free speech and access to information.
The law, which took effect in December, was hailed as a world-first attempt to counter the harms of algorithm-driven social media content on developing brains. There were early indications that a majority of Australian teenagers who had been using social media before the ban have continued to access it; but a growing list of countries have nevertheless passed similar measures.
Reddit is one of 10 companies covered by the Australian law, which also requires that Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube install age restrictions.
In the court cases, the Digital Freedom Project and Reddit argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the implied political rights of 13- to 15-year-olds. The Digital Freedom Project, headed by a libertarian state legislator, sued to block the law shortly before it took effect, while Reddit filed its challenge two days after it came into force. The cases are being jointly heard by the court in Australia’s capital, Canberra.
In its filings, lawyers for the Digital Freedom Project said that social media platforms provide “fora for political communication.” Young Australians would receive information, express views, engage in discussions, pose questions to elected officials and organize political action through social media, they argued.
They noted that 15-year-olds are prospective electors who will reach the legal voting age within Australia’s three-year federal election cycle and should be allowed to participate in political debates and exchanges.
Reddit also contended that the law violates the “implied freedom” of political communication guaranteed by Australia’s Constitution. Because young people disproportionately get their news from social media, the law interferes with their ability to participate in the political process, its lawyers argued.
They pointed out that the eSafety commissioner, the head of the regulatory agency tasked with implementing and enforcing the law, has said in media interviews that the legislation is a “blunt force approach” and with “very thin scaffolding.”
In response, the government argued in its filings that the restriction was necessary to protect children from design features that encourage addictive use. Social media use may also affect brain development; have negative effects on sleep; or result in mental health consequences like depression, anxiety or disordered eating, it argued.
The risks to young people are baked into the design of the 10 platforms, including algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, notifications, alerts and likes, the government’s lawyers wrote.
The ban put the burden on companies to keep children from holding accounts on their services, with the threat of a fine of up to about 99 million Australian dollars, or about $70 million. The eSafety Commission has said that it has opened investigations into five of the platforms for noncompliance.
It is unclear when the court will issue decisions.
The addictive features have been at the heart of a string of personal injury lawsuits in U.S. courts against the tech giants. In August, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, reached a landmark settlement with 47 U.S. states and other jurisdictions, agreeing to pay up to $17.1 billion and make major changes to its products.
