Australia’s High Court began hearing challenges to its under-16 social-media account restrictions.
Why it matters: The case will test whether Australia’s pioneering age-based regime unlawfully burdens political communication. Its reasoning could inform governments considering similar restrictions, although any ruling would directly bind Australian law.
- The High Court began hearing the joined cases on 3 November 2026 in Canberra.
- Reddit argues its knowledge-sharing forum is not an age-restricted social-media platform under the law.
- The plaintiffs say the regime limits under-16 users’ ability to speak, organise and access political information.
- eSafety says platforms removed or restricted about 4.7 million under-16 accounts in December 2025.
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are challenging Part 4A of Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, which requires covered platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. The High Court joined the two proceedings into one special case, with the hearing scheduled for 3-4 November 2026. The court docket has not set a decision date.
Both plaintiffs argue that the law impermissibly burdens Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. Reddit says the restrictions prevent young users from speaking, interacting, organising and reaching audiences through account-dependent features. Its separate statutory argument says Reddit’s significant purpose is knowledge-sharing, not social interaction between users. Reddit’s written case seeks a declaration that it does not fall within the law’s definition of an age-restricted platform.
The Digital Freedom Project says account-based features support political discussion, news exchange, communication with elected representatives and civic organising. Its submissions point to parental consent, recommender-system controls, safety-by-design requirements and a broader digital duty of care as less restrictive alternatives. The group’s filing also disputes whether the law’s privacy safeguards for age assurance are sufficient.
The Commonwealth says any burden on political communication is modest, indirect and justified by reducing risks linked to engagement-promoting platform features. It argues the Digital Freedom Project lacks standing and maintains that Part 4A is valid. The government also emphasizes that children face no direct penalty and that logged-out viewing remains available. The government’s position contrasts with Reddit counsel’s description of the law as “ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation.”
By the numbers
- A$49.5 million - maximum corporate penalty cited in court submissions
- 4.7 million - under-16 accounts eSafety said platforms removed or restricted in December 2025
- 16 - minimum age for holding accounts on covered platforms
Yes, but: The 4.7 million figure counts accounts, not unique children. The court has not yet indicated whether a ruling would invalidate the entire regime, specific provisions or only affect Reddit’s classification.
What's next: The hearing is scheduled to continue on 4 November 2026. The High Court has not set a date for judgment.