Canberra: The Australian government has defended its ban on social media accounts for children under 16 before the country's High Court, arguing that the restrictions place only a modest limit on political communication and are justified by the need to protect young people from online harm.
The case centres on whether the government can restrict children's access to major social media platforms without violating Australia's constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
The government's defence was presented on Wednesday, the second day of hearings before a seven judge panel at the High Court in Canberra. Government lawyer Stephen Lloyd argued that the restrictions do not prevent young people from accessing the wider internet or expressing their views. Instead, they limit their ability to hold accounts on certain social media platforms.
Lloyd told the court that the impact on political communication was modest and that the restrictions were justified by the government's responsibility to protect children. He also argued that the legislation did not target particular political opinions and applied equally regardless of what users wanted to discuss.
Another government lawyer, Joanna Davidson, outlined concerns about the potential effects of social media on children. These included addictive use, sleep disruption, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, disordered eating and worsening symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The legal challenge has been brought by Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project, a civil liberties advocacy group. Both argue that the restrictions interfere with young people's ability to participate in public discussions, access information and express their opinions online.
The Digital Freedom Project maintains that social media platforms have become important spaces for political discussion and public participation. It argues that preventing children under 16 from holding accounts could limit their ability to understand public issues and engage in discussions about decisions affecting their lives.
Reddit has separately challenged the legislation, questioning its inclusion among the restricted platforms. The company argues that the restrictions are too broad and that safer, age appropriate online spaces should remain available to young people.
The Australian government maintains that social media companies must take greater responsibility for protecting younger users from harmful online environments.
Australia introduced the restrictions through amendments to its Online Safety Act 2021. The legislation was passed in November 2024 and came into effect on December 10, 2025.
It requires designated social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. The original list of platforms covered Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Snapchat, X, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch.
The restrictions do not amount to a complete ban on internet access for children. Young people can still access publicly available online content without an account where platforms permit it. Educational and health services, along with many messaging and gaming services, are also outside the restrictions.
The law places responsibility on social media companies rather than children or their parents. Companies that fail to take reasonable steps to comply can face substantial financial penalties.
However, early evidence suggests that enforcing the restrictions remains difficult.
The Australian eSafety Commissioner published an evaluation on July 31, 2026, examining the first three months after the restrictions took effect. The study found that the proportion of children under 16 holding social media accounts declined from 52.4 per cent to 42.1 per cent.
However, the proportion reporting that they continued to use social media, either with or without an account, fell only from 85.9 per cent to 81.5 per cent.
The findings indicate that the legislation has reduced account ownership but has not prevented most children from accessing social media. Some young users have continued to use platforms despite the restrictions, while age verification systems have also faced difficulties identifying users' actual ages.
The government has reported that more than five million accounts belonging to underage users have been removed, deactivated or restricted since the restrictions began. The figure refers to accounts rather than individual children.
The government has also strengthened enforcement measures. Amendments that came into force on September 11, 2026, gave the eSafety Commissioner additional powers to obtain information and investigate whether companies are meeting their legal responsibilities.
The changes also increased the maximum civil penalty that a court can impose on companies to 109.2 million Australian dollars.
The Australian restrictions have attracted international attention as governments in several countries consider stronger measures to protect children from online harm. The debate has raised wider questions about how countries can balance children's safety with their freedom to communicate and participate in digital society.
Supporters of Australia's approach argue that children need greater protection from harmful content, cyberbullying and excessive use of digital platforms. They also believe that delaying access to social media accounts could give young people more time to develop the skills needed to use online services safely.
Critics, however, warn that broad restrictions could prevent young people from accessing useful information, maintaining social connections and participating in important public discussions. Concerns have also been raised about privacy and the use of age verification technology.
Australia's Constitution does not provide an express general right to freedom of expression. However, the High Court has recognised an implied freedom of political communication that limits government power.
The court must consider whether the legislation burdens political communication and, if so, whether the restriction is justified by a legitimate government objective and is compatible with Australia's constitutional system.
The court's decision could have wider implications for how governments regulate social media and balance children's safety with freedom of communication in the digital age.
The High Court has not yet delivered its decision. The constitutional challenge remains unresolved, leaving the future of Australia's under 16 social media restrictions uncertain.