social media age ban - where is the real harm?

In December 2024, the Commonwealth enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, amending the Online Safety Act 2021. The legislation introduced a national prohibition on children under the age of 16 holding accounts on designated social media platforms.

Background

The amendments impose obligations on social media service providers to take reasonable steps to prevent persons under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Failure to comply may expose platforms to civil penalties under the regulatory framework administered by the eSafety Commissioner.

The law applies to major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube. The legislative scheme focuses on account access rather than passive viewing, meaning individuals may still view publicly available content without holding an account.

The legislation was scheduled to commence in December 2025, following which platforms began implementing compliance measures in anticipation of enforcement.

Legislative purpose

The stated purpose of the amendments, as articulated by the Commonwealth, is to reduce exposure of children to online harms, including cyberbullying, harmful content, and algorithmic amplification.

The legislation operates as a blanket age based restriction rather than a content specific or risk tiered model.

The Commonwealth has characterised the regime as a protective measure aimed at child safety, rather than a regulation of speech or political participation.

Proceedings commenced in the High Court

Two separate High Court challenges have been commenced in relation to the social media minimum age provisions.

The first proceeding was initiated by the Digital Freedom Project, acting on behalf of two 15-year-old applicants. The plaintiffs seek declarations that the minimum age provisions are invalid on constitutional grounds.

The High Court has agreed to hear the matter by way of a special case, allowing constitutional questions to be determined directly without the matter proceeding through lower courts.

A separate proceeding has been commenced by Reddit Inc, which challenges the validity of the legislation as it applies to the platform and seeks declaratory relief regarding its classification as a regulated social media service under the Act.

Both matters remain pending, with no final determination delivered at the time of writing.

Issues raised by the Digital Freedom Project challenge

The Digital Freedom Project challenge is founded on the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution.

The plaintiffs contend that the prohibition on account access for under-16s burdens their ability to communicate and receive political and governmental information using mainstream digital platforms. They argue that social media platforms form part of the modern infrastructure of political discourse.

The challenge asserts that the legislation is not reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving its stated purpose, and that the burden imposed on political communication is disproportionate to the legislative objective.

The Commonwealth disputes these claims and has indicated it will defend the validity of the legislation.

Issues raised by the Reddit challenge

Reddit’s challenge focuses on the structure and scope of the regulatory scheme.

Reddit argues that the legislation applies inconsistently across different digital services and does not meaningfully address the stated harms, given that users may continue to access platform content without holding accounts.

The platform contends that its inclusion within the regulated category of social media services is illogical when compared with other online services that permit interaction or content sharing but are excluded from the regime.

Reddit seeks declarations clarifying the operation of the Act and whether it is properly characterised as an age restricted social media platform for the purposes of the legislation.

Role of the states and territories

Several state governments have publicly indicated their intention to support the Commonwealth’s position in the High Court proceedings.

New South Wales has confirmed its involvement, while other states, including South Australia and Western Australia, have indicated support for the objectives of the legislation, reflecting its national significance and its interaction with state based child protection frameworks.

Regulatory implementation

Following commencement of the legislation, social media platforms have implemented age assurance and account management processes to comply with the new requirements.

Some platforms have publicly reported large-scale removals of accounts identified as belonging to under-16 users, while also identifying technical and practical limitations associated with age verification mechanisms.

The eSafety Commissioner remains the primary regulator responsible for enforcement and oversight under the Online Safety Act framework.

Status of the proceedings

The High Court has accepted the Digital Freedom Project matter for hearing as a special case. Submissions are expected to focus on the application of the implied freedom test and whether the legislation impermissibly burdens political communication.

No hearing date has been publicly finalised, and no interlocutory orders suspending the operation of the legislation have been reported.

The Reddit proceedings are continuing separately, subject to the Court’s case management decisions.

Professional Significance

The High Court’s determination will clarify how constitutional freedoms apply to age based restrictions on digital platforms. The outcome will have implications for the regulation of online services, the scope of the implied freedom of political communication, and the design of future child safety legislation in Australia.