Reddit Inc., the California-based operator of the widely used online forum, has launched a legal challenge in Australia’s High Court in a bid to overturn the nation’s unprecedented law banning children under the age of 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms. The lawsuit follows the enactment of the world’s first age-based social media restriction, which came into force this week and has thrust Australia to the forefront of global debates over digital regulation and child safety.
The legislation, known as the Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law, requires platforms such as Reddit, Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube and others to take “reasonable steps” to prevent users under 16 from maintaining accounts, with failure to comply attracting fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $33 million) per platform. The law is enforced by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who has already begun issuing compulsory information notices to social media companies to determine how many under-16 accounts have been deactivated since the law took effect.
In its court filing, Reddit argues that the law, while designed to protect children from online harm, is being applied inaccurately to its platform and that aspects of the legislation are unconstitutional because they infringe on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. The company stresses that it primarily serves adults and does not operate like traditional social networks, asserting that the law could force intrusive and potentially insecure age-verification processes not only on minors but also on adult users. Reddit’s statement to the court also highlighted concerns that the law could isolate teenagers from engaging in age-appropriate digital communities and political discussions, and that it unfairly treats some platforms differently from others.
Despite mounting its legal case, Reddit has said it will continue to comply with the legislation and engage with regulators. The platform maintained that its challenge is not an attempt to evade compliance but rather to seek a judicial review of how the law has been applied and, if necessary, to secure clarity on its obligations.
The Australian government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has defended the SMMA law as a necessary measure to protect young Australians from the potential harms of unsupervised social media use, including exposure to harmful content, privacy risks and developmental issues linked to excessive digital engagement. A government spokesperson reiterated that the policy aims to support parents and safeguard children, declining to comment further on the specific legal arguments while the matter is before the courts.
Legal experts note that challenges to the implied freedom of political communication in Australia have historically faced an uphill battle, but Reddit’s case underscores the tensions between digital rights, child protection, and constitutional guarantees in the digital age. The lawsuit is the second major legal action against the SMMA law, following a separate challenge filed last month by Sydney-based rights group the Digital Freedom Project on behalf of two teenagers.
The outcome of these challenges could have significant implications not only for Reddit but for other tech companies grappling with the new regulatory environment in Australia. A preliminary hearing in the High Court is expected in early 2026, where judges will determine whether to proceed with full arguments on the constitutionality of the law and its application to platforms like Reddit.
As the legal battle unfolds, the broader global conversation around children’s access to digital spaces and the responsibilities of technology companies shows no sign of abating, with policymakers and advocacy groups watching closely to see how Australia’s bold experiment will be interpreted and enforced.
