The Australian government has conceded it implemented its under-16s social media ban without scientific consensus establishing a link between mental health harms and social media use. Defending the policy against a High Court challenge by US-based platform Reddit, the government argued that “credible risks” of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the policy.
Defending Precautionary Action Without Scientific Consensus
When the Australian government implemented its under-16s social media ban, the legislative push was made before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use. In its formal defence filed on Friday in the High Court, the government argued that “uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people.”
The Australian government’s submission pointed to agreed facts in the case, identifying “significant credible risks” of children developing addictive behaviours, disrupted sleep, and worsening depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours or ideation.
“Uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people,” the government’s submission stated. The government contends that the existence of credible risks of harm and credible causal pathways between account-related design features and those risks justifies the parliament’s decision to enact a precautionary protective measure.
The Legal Battle Lines Drawn by Reddit and Global Tech Bodies
Reddit has challenged the under-16s social media ban in the high court as one of two cases against the ban, with hearings expected to be heard jointly before the end of 2026. In its submission to the court last month, the platform argued that the ban represented a burden on the implied freedom of political communications, while also not addressing the risk of harm.
Reddit pointed to the exclusion of some platforms from the ban, and the design features the ban was aiming to address still available to users without accounts, as well as the reported number of children under 16 who have maintained accounts or registered new ones since the ban came into effect in December last year.
Furthermore, Reddit argued that if the commonwealth wishes to address a problem with content to young people, it could address it directly as part of its proposed digital duty of care legislation. The company told the court that “there is no scientific consensus about whether there is a causal link between social media use and particular harms”.
Weighing the Digital Duty of Care Against Platform Bans
The Australian government countered by arguing that its proposed digital duty of care legislation would effectively require the features targeted by the ban to not be in operation for under-16s on social media. According to the federal defence, the proper application of this legislation would require the same action as the ban.
“Their proper application would require the same action: namely preventing children having accounts or providing children with accounts that do not have any of the [same] features,” the government argued.
To demonstrate the efficacy of the current rules, the government highlighted that the ban has already produced “substantial practical action”. Nearly 5m accounts were removed in December last year. This total includes 43,962 accounts suspended by Reddit between December and March this year.
Escalating Enforcement and Global Tech Coalition Pushback
To force continued compliance, the government has boosted the powers of the eSafety commissioner and doubled the fines that can be sought to nearly $100m for non-compliance, as part of measures to attempt to force the platforms to weed out remaining under-16 users.
The peak US body for tech companies, NetChoice, is also seeking to be heard in the case, alongside digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). NetChoice members include Meta, Twitch, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, X and YouTube – which are all included in the social media ban.
| Legal Challenge & Policy Element | Core Argument / Action | Key Data Points |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Government Defence | Precautionary measures justified by credible risks of addictive behaviours, anxiety, and other harms despite uncertain causation. | Nearly 5m accounts removed in December; fines doubled to nearly $100m. |
| Reddit High Court Challenge | Ban burdens political communication, lacks scientific consensus, and fails to address design features accessible without accounts. | 43,962 accounts suspended by Reddit between December and March. |
| Proposed Digital Duty of Care | Federal legislation that would require the same action as the ban regarding features for under-16s. | Features targeted by the ban would not be in operation for under-16s. |
Worth a look
