The High Court is hearing arguments this week on whether the Federal Government’s social media ban breaches young Australians’ freedom of political communication.
Social media platform Reddit and advocacy group the Digital Freedom Project brought the challenge to Australia’s top court.
The Government argues the restrictions are necessary to prevent the “risks of serious harm to children” posed by social media.
Here’s what you need to know about the case.
Background
Since December 2025, the Federal Government has restricted social media access for children under 16.
The ban includes Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook, Kick, Threads, Twitch, and Reddit.
Social media companies could face fines of up to $109.2 million if under 16s make an account on their platforms.
High Court case
In the past, the High Court has ruled Australia’s Constitution implies we have freedom of political communication as part of our democracy.
The Australian Human Rights Commission says this freedom is “from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals”.
Last year, the Digital Freedom Project announced a case challenging the youth social media ban in the High Court on the grounds of freedom of political communication.
The Digital Freedom Project is led by NSW Libertarian Party upper house member John Ruddick and describes itself as “concerned about increasing government intervention in the digital space.”
Separately, social media platform Reddit challenged the ban in the High Court, arguing it “burdens the implied freedom” as it “prohibits young people from using tools of political communication”.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
ContributeIn July, High Court Chief Justice Stephen Gageler ruled the cases should proceed together as a joint special case.
Hearings
The High Court is hearing the case on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Originally, two NSW teenagers (Macy Neyland and Noah Jones) were listed as plaintiffs for the case.
They were withdrawn as parties in July, which The Guardian reported was to ensure the teenagers would not face legal costs if the plaintiffs lost the case.
Govt response
In a submission to the court, the Government argued in its defence that the ban is justified due to the risks social media presents to young people, which it says are “based on peer-reviewed research”.
It argues that alternatives such as content regulation, parental controls and education would not be as effective in addressing harm.
Attorneys-General for every state and territory have also intervened in the case, providing submissions to the court in favour of the ban.
What’s next?
The case will be heard over two days this week.
It is unlikely a judgment will be delivered at the end of the hearing, as these are generally “reserved” for a later sitting.
The Court aims to provide reserved judgments within three months of a hearing.
