US-based platform Reddit has filed a challenge in Australia’s High Court, seeking to overturn the nation’s unprecedented social media ban for users under the age of 16. The company argues that the legislation infringes on free political speech and poses significant privacy risks.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which took effect on Wednesday, requires platforms to prevent under-16 Australians from holding accounts. Reddit, while complying with the legislation, contends that it unconstitutionally restricts political communication by blocking young Australians from engaging in online political discourse.
“This law is missing the mark,” Reddit stated in materials released on Friday, suggesting that there are “more effective ways” to protect youth than what it describes as an intrusive blanket ban. The company highlights the burden this law places on privacy and free expression rights.
Understanding the Legislation
The legislation imposes severe penalties for non-compliance, with fines reaching up to $49.5 million. Reddit’s legal challenge is threefold: questioning the law’s validity, its application to Reddit as an “age-restricted social media platform,” and the fairness of its enforcement.
In its legal filing, Reddit argues that “the political views of children inform the electoral choices of many current electors, including their parents and their teachers,” and that restricting children from expressing their views “directly burdens political communication in Australia.”
“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,” Reddit noted, emphasizing the potential benefits of account-based safety settings.
Privacy Concerns and Platform Comparisons
Reddit is acting on behalf of its Australian users, who have raised concerns about being required to submit government ID or facial scans to access a platform traditionally built on pseudonymity. The company, which had never previously collected age information, has had to develop new verification systems to comply with the law.
Furthermore, Reddit argues that it should not be categorized under the law, given its function as a public forum rather than a traditional social media network. It points out that other platforms like Discord and gaming services with chat features, such as Roblox, have not been subjected to the same regulations.
Reddit maintains that it is being unfairly targeted as “a forum primarily for adults” that does not have the algorithmic feeds and friend networks the government aimed to regulate.
Alternative Models and Legal Strategy
Reddit suggests that California’s Digital Age Assurance Act offers a better model. This law, effective since October, requires operating system providers like Apple and Google to collect a user’s age or birthdate at device setup, converting this information into an “age bracket signal” for apps, thus protecting precise personal data.
Reddit has enlisted constitutional law expert Perry Herzfeld, SC, and law firm Thomson Geer, known for challenging eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant’s rulings on behalf of Elon Musk’s X. A directions hearing is anticipated in February, with a final judgment potentially delayed until late 2026.
Government Response and Broader Implications
The challenge coincides with a separate High Court action supported by teen advocacy groups contesting the legislation. Communications Minister Anika Wells addressed parliament, stating, “We will not yield to intimidation. We will not be deterred by legal disputes.”
Inman Grant, anticipating legal challenges, remarked, “We’ll see what happens,” in an interview. She added, “If the court makes a decision, we’ll abide by it. It may be that the Commonwealth wins. It may be that some changes need to be made to the policy. Who knows? I’m just going to move forward, given there hasn’t been any legal constraint placed on us.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome could set a precedent for how digital platforms navigate age restrictions and privacy concerns globally. The case underscores the ongoing tension between regulatory efforts to protect minors online and the rights to privacy and free expression.
