Reddit challenges Australia’s under-16 social media ban in High Court filing, says law curbs political speech

Reddit challenges Australia’s under-16 social media ban in High Court filing, says law curbs political speech

Published Thu, Dec 11 2025

10:36 PM EST

Updated Moments Ago

Key Points

• Reddit challenged Australia’s teen social media ban, saying it is ineffective and disproportionate.
• The platform argued that the law goes too far by limiting teen participation in political discussion.
• Canberra's ban came into effect on Wednesday and targeted 10 major services.

Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

Reddit, the popular community-focused forum, has launched a legal challenge against Australia's social media ban for teens under 16, arguing that the newly enacted law is ineffective and goes too far by restricting political discussion online.

In its application to Australia's High Court, the social news and aggregation platform said the law is "invalid on the basis of the implied freedom of political communication", saying that it burdens political communication.

Canberra's ban came into effect on Wednesday and targeted 10 major services, including Alphabet's YouTube, Meta's Instagram, ByteDance's TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat and Elon Musk's X. All targeted platforms had agreed to comply with the policy to varying degrees.

Australia's Prime Minister's office, Attorney-General's Department and other social media platforms did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

Under the law, the targeted platforms will have to take "reasonable steps" to prevent underage access, using age-verification methods such as inference from online activity, facial estimation via selfies, uploaded IDs, or linked bank details.

Reddit's application to the courts seeks to either declare the law invalid or exclude the platform from the provisions of the law.

In a statement to CNBC, Reddit said that while it agrees with the importance of protecting persons under 16, the law could isolate teens "from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions)."

It also said in its application that the law "burdens political communication," saying "the political views of children inform the electoral choices of many current electors, including their parents and their teachers, as well as others interested in the views of those soon to reach the age of maturity."

The platform also argued that it should not be subject to the law, saying it operates more as a forum for adults facilitating "knowledge sharing" between users than as a traditional social network, saying that it does not import contact lists or address books.

"Reddit is significantly different from other sites that allow for users to become "friends" with one another, or to post photos about themselves, or to organise events," the platform said in its application.

Reddit further said in its court filing that most content on its platform is accessible without an account, and pointed out a person under the age of 16 "can be more easily protected from online harm if they have an account, being the very thing that is prohibited.""That is because the account can be subject to settings that limit their access to particular kinds of content that may be harmful to them," it adds.

Despite its objections, Reddit said that the challenge was not an attempt to avoid complying with the law, nor was it an effort to retain young users for business reasons.

"There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans," the platform said.

— CNBC's Dylan Butts and Stephen Desaulniers contributed to this story.

Source