Reddit has lodged a challenge in the High Court against Australia’s ban on social media use by under-16s, filing its case two days after introducing age restrictions on its platform.
In a statement posted on Friday, the company said it supported efforts to protect young people but argued the legislation imposed “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 described the law as an “illogical patchwork” of platforms and cited the Australian Human Rights Commission, which has warned that less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same aim without undermining other rights.
The company maintained that Reddit is primarily a forum for adults and does not feature the traditional social networking functions targeted by the government. It is challenging the legislation on the grounds that it infringes the implied freedom of political communication and is questioning whether Reddit should be considered an age-restricted social media platform under the law.
Reddit stressed that it was not seeking to avoid compliance and had already implemented age-assurance measures. It noted that most of its users are adults, advertising is not directed at children under 18, and the Apple app store rates the platform as suitable for ages 17 and above.
“Despite the best intentions, this law is missing the mark on actually protecting young people online,” the company 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.”
The case is separate from one brought by New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddick’s Digital Freedom Project group, which is due back in court in late February. Reddit expects its own challenge to be heard next year if the High Court agrees to take it up.
Professor Sarah Joseph of Griffith University’s law school said she believed there was a strong case against the ban, arguing that it cut off a major source of political information for those under 16. “Whilst that is not the intention of the legislation, that is one of its many effects,” she said. However, she added that most challenges on implied freedom grounds fail, as the High Court often finds such laws proportionate.
Constitutional law professor Luke Beck of Monash University wrote in the Guardian that the ban only slightly reduces the overall volume of political communication in Australia. He noted that teenagers are not barred from using the internet or participating in online group chats, and predicted the government would likely succeed in defending the law.
Documents obtained under freedom of information laws show Reddit had argued to the eSafety commissioner in September that it should be excluded from the ban. The company said its primary purpose was knowledge-sharing through topic-based communities, with interaction between users incidental to that aim. It emphasised that pseudonymity is central to Reddit’s norms, and that it does not promote real-time presence, friend requests or activity feeds.
Reddit described itself as a “pseudonymous platform organised around sharing information in topic-based communities rather than personal profiles or social networks”.
The government has named ten platforms covered by the ban: Twitch, Kick, YouTube, Threads, Facebook, Instagram, Snap, X, TikTok and Reddit. All had implemented compliance measures by Wednesday.