Reddit Challenges Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban In High Court

Reddit has lodged a high court challenge against Australia’s under-16 social media ban, filing its case two days after introducing age restrictions on its platform.

In a post on Friday, the company said that while it supported protecting users under 16, the law “has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors, isolating teens from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences.”

Reddit criticised what it called an “illogical patchwork” of platforms covered by the ban. Quoting the Australian Human Rights Commission, it noted: “There are less restrictive alternatives available that could achieve the aim of protecting children and young people from online harms, but without having such a significant negative impact on other human rights.”

The company argued that Reddit is primarily an adult forum and lacks the traditional social media features targeted by the government. It is challenging the law on grounds that it infringes the implied freedom of political communication and is also questioning whether Reddit qualifies as an age-restricted social media platform under the legislation.

Reddit emphasised it was not seeking to avoid compliance and had implemented age-assurance measures since Wednesday. It said most Reddit users are adults, advertising is not aimed at those under 18, and the Apple App Store rates Reddit as 17+.

“Despite the best intentions, this law is missing the mark on actually protecting young people online,” Reddit said. “So, while we will comply with this law, we have a responsibility to share our perspective and see that it is reviewed by the courts.”

Reddit’s case is separate from one filed by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick’s Digital Freedom Project group, which is due back in court in late February. Reddit expects its own case to be heard next year if the high court agrees to take it up.

Constitutional law expert Luke Beck wrote in the Guardian on Thursday that any law reducing political communication in Australia would be invalid unless proportionate to a legitimate purpose. However, he noted, “The social media account ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication in Australia. The law does not ban teenagers from using the internet or having online group chats. It’s likely that in the [Ruddick] social media account case … the government will succeed.”

The Guardian reported Tuesday that Reddit had argued to the eSafety commissioner in September that it should be exempt from the ban. In a letter obtained under freedom of information laws, Reddit said: “The sole or significant purpose of our platform is to provide knowledge-sharing in timely, context-rich conversations; interaction between end-users is simply an incidental step to enabling this primary purpose.”

Reddit added that its norms discourage real names or identities, as communities are not built around real-time social networking among young people. The platform does not promote real-time presence, friend requests, or activity feeds that drive ongoing engagement. It said it collects minimal personal data to maintain pseudonymity.

Reddit described itself as “a pseudonymous platform organized around sharing information in topic-based communities rather than personal profiles or social networks.”

The 10 platforms covered by the ban — Twitch, Kick, YouTube, Threads, Facebook, Instagram, Snap, X, TikTok, and Reddit — had all implemented compliance measures by Wednesday.