CANBERRA, Australia: Australia's world-first ban on social media accounts for children under 16 came under legal challenge on November 3, with Reddit arguing that the law unfairly restricts young people's freedom of political expression and was poorly designed.

Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group have asked Australia's High Court to declare the law invalid. The legislation, which took effect in late 2025, prevents major social media platforms from allowing under-16s to hold accounts.

The ban received strong support from many parents but faced opposition from technology companies. The legal challenge argues that the law violates an implied freedom of political communication protected by Australia's Constitution.

Reddit has also argued that the restrictions should not apply to its platform because it lacks some key features of traditional social media, particularly its reliance on networks of personal friends.

The case could have wider consequences for similar laws being considered or introduced in other countries. Governments from the United Kingdom to Malaysia are examining restrictions on children's access to social media as part of efforts to protect their mental and physical health.

The Australian government and Communications Minister Anika Wells, who is named as a defendant in the case, have said they will defend the legislation.

Representing Reddit, lawyer Perry Herzfeld told a seven-judge panel that preventing under-16s from holding social media accounts stopped them from creating or responding to online content.

"That is a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia," Herzfeld told the court.

He said the law significantly limited what young people could do online.

Legislation Ineffective, Says Reddit

Herzfeld said Reddit supported the government's aim of reducing harm to children but argued that the legislation was ineffective. He described it as poorly planned because it did not require platforms to introduce any particular measures to prevent children from accessing their services.

He also argued that the law failed to cover other online services where cyberbullying could occur, including gaming websites.

Herzfeld told the court that although users generally needed accounts to publish or comment on social media, large amounts of online content remained accessible to people without accounts.

He argued that the government should regulate specific harmful features of social media rather than impose a broad ban on young users.

Since the restrictions took effect, several studies, including research by Australia's eSafety Commissioner, have found that most teenagers under the age limit still use social media.

The government has responded by increasing the maximum penalty for platforms that fail to comply. The fine has been doubled to A$99 million, equivalent to about US$69.5 million.

It has also given the eSafety Commissioner greater powers to obtain information and investigate compliance. The government said it was preparing legal action against some of the largest social media companies.

Representing the government, lawyer Joanna Davidson argued that children were more vulnerable than adults to the addictive features of social media because their brains were still developing.

She was due to continue presenting the government's defense on November 4.

Speaking outside the court, Communications Minister Wells said she would respect the High Court's decision, which cannot be appealed, but remained determined to defend the law.

She said the government was protecting an important principle of Australian democracy, including children's right to be protected from harm.

Wells also argued that the challenge represented an ideological attack on the government's efforts to safeguard young people.