Australia banned Teens from Social Media. Are We Next?

Australia’s ban on under-16s holding social media accounts is being challenged in the country’s top court. The case is about young people’s access to online speech but its outcome could also shape a question for everyone else: if platforms must keep teens off their services, how will they check users’ ages, and who might have to prove theirs?

The government says the law is a modest, non-partisan measure to reduce harm to children. Under it, large social media platforms must prevent under-16s from holding accounts and can face fines of up to A$99 million for systemic noncompliance. Children and their caregivers are not punished.

Reddit and a libertarian advocacy group are seeking to overturn the law, arguing that it violates constitutionally protected speech. In court, Reddit’s lawyer said the restriction on minors’ expression is disproportionate to the benefits of keeping them off social media.

The government disagrees. Lawyer Stephen Lloyd told the seven-judge panel that the law only “incrementally” reduces children’s ability to send and receive content. Young people can still view some material without an account, he argued, and the measure does not single out particular viewpoints. Lloyd described the burden as “indirect and modest in extent.”

But enforcing the ban depends on platforms distinguishing under-16s from older users. That is where the policy’s effects could extend beyond teenagers. If a platform cannot reliably determine a user’s age from the information it already has, it may need to introduce some form of age-assurance process. Depending on how that process is designed, adults could also be asked to establish that they meet the age requirement before accessing an account.

The court account does not say that all Australian users are currently required to prove their age, nor does it specify which methods platforms are using. The government said it was unclear whether underage users remained on services because age-assurance technology was weak or because platforms had failed to implement it. That uncertainty leaves a central practical question unanswered: what will platforms have to do to make the ban work?

For ordinary users, the concern is not only whether an age check is accurate. It is also what information a check might require and how platforms would handle it. The hearing, as described, did not establish that platforms are collecting specific kinds of personal data or that adults must submit identification. But if stricter checks are introduced, users may reasonably want to know what information is requested, whether there are alternatives, and what happens when a system gets someone’s age wrong.

Those questions matter because age checks could affect access to online spaces used for more than entertainment. Social media accounts can be a way to follow news, join discussions, communicate with communities, and encounter political views. The case therefore places several interests in tension: protecting children, preserving young people’s speech, and avoiding unnecessary burdens or privacy intrusions on other users.

The law’s effectiveness is also in question. Multiple studies, including research by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, have found that most Australian children under 16 still use social media. The government says it is preparing an enforcement lawsuit. In court, Lloyd said the law could still advance child-protection aims, even as the reasons for continued underage use remain unclear.

Australia’s approach is part of a broader international debate. The case could influence lawmakers elsewhere who are considering or adopting restrictions aimed at protecting children online. If other governments follow Australia’s lead, platforms could face pressure to build age checks into services used by adults and young people alike. How those checks are designed may determine whether the policy remains a targeted restriction on minors or becomes a more routine checkpoint for the wider public.

The hearing has been adjourned to a date yet to be decided, when the judges are expected to rule. Their decision will help determine whether Australia’s ban stands. It may also shape how far governments can go in regulating young people’s online lives and whether the process of keeping teens off social media leads to new age-verification demands for everyone else.

Source