Australia’s High Court has finished two days of argument over its under-16 social-media account restrictions. The constitutional outcome remains unresolved.
Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project challenge provisions requiring covered platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding accounts. They argue that the restrictions impermissibly burden Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. Reddit also disputes whether its platform falls within the statutory category.
Protection and participation
The Commonwealth defended the restrictions as a limited, politically neutral response to harms associated with social media. That is the government’s argument, not a finding by the Court. Reuters reports that the hearing concluded with a decision to follow.
The legal question is more precise than whether social media can harm children. It concerns whether this particular legislative mechanism is constitutionally permissible.
The Court’s case summary also distinguishes participation from passive access: people without Reddit accounts can read posts, while account holders can contribute posts and comments.
That distinction helps explain why an account restriction can raise a political-communication issue even when some material remains viewable.
What Canadian lawyers should watch
The useful comparison is the design of age-assurance obligations: which services are covered, what conduct platforms must undertake, and how restrictions affect participation.
Australia’s implied-freedom doctrine does not decide Canadian Charter questions. Nor does a pending constitutional challenge establish that the legislation has ceased operating.
The next meaningful development is the judgment. Until then, the parties’ accounts of necessity, proportionality and practical effects must remain clearly attributed.
Sources: Reddit case record; Official November case summary; Full Court hearing list; Reuters, November 4.
Verification note: The court record confirms hearings on November 3 and 4; reporting corroborates their conclusion. No judgment was identified.