Reddit Sues Australia Over Under-16 Social Media Ban, Citing Constitutional Breach

Key Points:

• Reddit has filed a legal challenge in Australia’s High Court to overturn the new law banning social media access for children under 16.
• The lawsuit argues that the Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law is unconstitutional as it infringes upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communication.
• The Australian government maintains the ban is a vital measure to protect young people from online harms and predatory algorithms.

Online message board giant Reddit has challenged the Australian government in the High Court.

The lawsuit takes aim at the country’s recently enacted Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law, obliging designated platforms to take reasonable steps toward blocking users under the age of 16. 

The Legal Core of the Crisis

The law, which came into effect earlier this week, was trumpeted by the government as a world-first move to shield young Australians from online harms, cyberbullying, and addictive platform features. However, an application by Reddit filed in Australia’s high court says the measure is “invalid on the ground that it infringes the implied freedom of political communication.”

The implied freedom of political communication is a constitutional principle in Australia. It’s not a bill of rights, but a limit on parliamentary power to restrict political expression. 

Reddit argues that preventing the citizens under 16 from partaking in online political discussions-when they are going to be voters in months or years-is a basic contravention of that freedom.

In a filing, the platform’s legal team argued that this ban restricts political discussions not only for young users but also for adults, who need to understand emerging voters’ perspectives, including teachers and parents.

Privacy and Platform Concerns

Besides the controversy on Social Media Free Speech, Reddit has expressed important concerns over how the age ban would actually be carried out in reality. The law is forcing platforms such as Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube to implement “age assurance” that can be as simple as facial age estimation or even with the use of linked financial information or uploaded IDs.

In a statement published on its website, Reddit warned that the law “has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors.” It also indicates that collecting more sensitive personal data means serious privacy risks, increasing the risk of leaks or hacks.

The site also expressed its belief that the law was an “illogical patchwork” of platforms it covered, too, as it did not initially include many popular services that boast millions of young users: messaging apps, gaming, and education. 

The company said that it is an online discussion forum primarily aimed at adults and does not market to children under the age of 18 and therefore the addition to the ban was not accurate.

Government’s Attitude and Previous Warnings

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government has insisted on defending the law. A government spokesperson declined to address the merits of the lawsuit, saying, “The Albanese government is on the side of Australian parents and kids, not platforms. We will stand firm to protect young Australians from experiencing harm on social media,” according to an AP report.

The government’s rationale hinges on the documented mental health crisis and social pressures driven by some design features of major platforms. 

The lawsuit from Reddit is the second filed in the High Court; a separate challenge brought last month by the Digital Freedom Project, a rights group backed by two teenagers, was also filed on implied-freedom grounds.

A Pattern of Global Confrontation

This is not an isolated incident but rather the latest example in a growing global tension between governments seeking to regulate technology platforms and companies asserting their operational autonomy and user rights.

X, formerly known as Twitter, had also dragged the Indian government to court on several occasions for its content-blocking orders, with a complaint that the government was bypassing established legal processes and instituting a parallel system for censorship. 

Similarly, social media companies have taken the U.S. state laws that tried to regulate their content moderation policies to courts several times, citing First Amendment free-speech concerns. Tech groups once challenged state laws in Texas and Florida before the U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrating the pervasive nature of this legal friction in 2024.