Australia Admits Its Under-16 Social Media Ban Came Before Scientists Agreed

Australia's government concedes it imposed its under-16 social media ban before scientists reached agreement on whether social media causes mental health harms. The concession is part of Canberra's High Court defence to a challenge brought by Reddit, reported on 29 September 2026. The government maintains that credible risks of harm justify the ban. The Guardian

Reddit is one of two plaintiffs challenging the age-restricted law, with both cases expected to be heard jointly before the end of 2026. The law prevents anyone under 16 from holding an account on age-restricted social media platforms. Australia became the first country to impose such a ban. Reuters

Reddit argues the ban burdens the implied freedom of political communication. That doctrine, implied in the Australian Constitution, limits Commonwealth laws that unduly restrict political discussion. Reddit told the Court there is no scientific consensus on whether a causal link exists between social media use and particular harms.

Canberra does not contest the absence of consensus. Its defence says agreed facts identified significant credible risks for children, including addictive behaviours, disrupted sleep, and worsening depression, anxiety, and suicidal behaviours or thinking. It says uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people. In its position, credible risks of addictive behaviour and anxiety alone warrant the law.

The defence links the ban to Canberra's proposed digital duty of care. Labor has put forward draft laws requiring platforms to notify users about algorithms and offer choice over them. Reuters In its High Court filings, the government argued a duty-of-care model that lets users opt out of features such as algorithms would have the same effect as the ban if implemented. Properly applied, it said, it would require preventing children from having accounts or giving children accounts without the features targeted by the ban.

On enforcement, the government says nearly 5 million accounts were removed in December last year after the ban took effect. It says Reddit suspended 43,962 accounts between December and March. The government has boosted the powers of the eSafety commissioner and doubled fines for non-compliance with the ban to nearly $100 million.

The plaintiffs introduced comparative material. Reddit's submission states that the French Constitutional Council recently held that a ban on social media for under-15s was unconstitutional. High Court filing A separate filing by DigFree references a Cambridge report reviewing evidence relevant to a proposed UK under-16 ban. High Court filing

Canberra has said it will defend the regime firmly. The prime minister vowed to bullet-proof laws supporting the ban, and ministers have discussed tougher enforcement. Penalties under the proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation could reach 109.2 million Australian dollars.

The broader context here is a test of precautionary regulation under constitutional limits. Like requiring seatbelts before crash data was complete, the government acted on risk rather than settled proof. The Court must weigh that conceded gap in evidence against the asserted risks, and decide whether a blanket age bar is proportionate when Canberra itself says feature-based controls could provide equivalent protection.

Looking at what this means for platforms, the immediate questions are operational. Age checks at scale, removals in the millions, and parallel duties around algorithmic choice create overlapping compliance tasks. A ruling that narrows the ban would not necessarily unwind the duty-of-care system now being built around it.