According to TechRepublic, Reddit has launched a constitutional challenge in Australia’s High Court against the country’s new social media ban for children under 16. The lawsuit was filed just 48 hours after the law went into effect on December 10. Reddit argues the ban violates Australia’s implied freedom of political communication and creates an “illogical patchwork” of restrictions. The platform is one of 10 major services, including Facebook and TikTok, that face fines up to $32.9 million if they fail to prevent under-16s from having accounts. The legal challenge joins a similar one filed by two Australian teenagers last month, backed by the Digital Freedom Project. Preliminary hearings in this landmark case are set for late February.
Reddit’s Unique Argument
Here’s the thing: Reddit isn’t just arguing about free speech. They’re making a more fundamental claim. They’re questioning whether they should even be classified as social media at all. The platform describes itself as “a forum primarily for adults,” and they have a point. It operates very differently from the algorithmic, friend-network-driven models of Instagram or TikTok. But does that distinction matter to a law written in broad strokes? Probably not. And that’s the core of the problem they’re highlighting.
Their argument exposes a massive flaw in the legislation’s design. Gaming platforms like Roblox, which authorities have flagged for child safety risks, are completely exempt because their “significant purpose” is gaming. So you have a platform like Reddit, which doesn’t market to kids and says under-16s are not a “substantial market segment,” getting hammered. Meanwhile, a virtual world where kids spend hours interacting is given a free pass. It’s a weird, inconsistent standard that seems more about political optics than practical safety.
The Verification Mess and Winners
Now, let’s talk about the impossible task this law creates. Platforms have to verify ages but can’t force users to hand over government IDs for privacy reasons. So what’s the solution? It’s a technological and logistical nightmare. Reddit says it would force “intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults.” Basically, everyone’s privacy gets worse to solve a problem that, on Reddit at least, might not even exist at scale.
And who benefits from this chaos? Look at the data. Since the law kicked in, downloads of alternative apps have gone through the roof. Yope skyrocketed 251% and Lemon8 jumped 88% in just a few days. This is the classic “Whack-a-Mole” effect. You ban kids from the big, monitored platforms, and they just flood to newer, less-regulated ones. It doesn’t make kids safer; it just moves the problem to darker corners of the internet where oversight is even weaker.
A Global Domino Effect
This isn’t just an Australian story. Governments from Florida to the EU are watching closely and crafting their own versions of youth social media bans. The outcome of this High Court case could set a massive precedent. If Reddit and the teens win on constitutional free speech grounds, it could throw a wrench into similar legislative efforts worldwide. If the government wins, it greenlights a new, more aggressive era of platform regulation.
Australia’s Health Minister, Mark Butler, isn’t mincing words. He compared Reddit to Big Tobacco, saying they want to “protect profits… at the expense of the mental health of young people.” That’s a powerful, emotionally charged argument with huge public support, backed by celebrities like Oprah. But is it the right fix for a complex problem? Banning access entirely feels like using a sledgehammer when you might need a scalpel. It shuts down legitimate political discourse and learning for teens while arguably doing little to address the root causes of online harm.
