Reddit Challenges Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban in High Court
Reddit has launched a High Court challenge against Australia’s new under-16 social media restrictions, arguing the law misclassifies the platform and forces unnecessary privacy risks on users.
The company says it is complying with the legislation but warns that the Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law requires “intrusive and potentially insecure” age-verification processes for all users, not just minors. Reddit also argues the new rules create an “illogical patchwork” of which platforms are included and which are exempt.
The Albanese government responded by defending the age-limit policy, saying it stands with “Australian parents and kids, not platforms,” but declined further comment while the case is before the courts.
Reddit Claims the Law Is Poorly Adapted
Reddit’s filing argues the law is not “reasonably appropriate and adapted” for all platforms it covers. Under the legislation, companies must take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating accounts. However, Reddit notes there is no requirement to restrict content that can be viewed without logging in—a significant point because much of Reddit’s content is accessible publicly.
The company also says Australia’s rules allow exemptions for platforms such as messaging apps, email services, online games, and educational platforms, undermining the logic of which services are classified as “social media.”
Reddit Says It Is Not a Social Network in the Traditional Sense
Reddit argues it should not be treated the same as platforms built around personal connections. Citing dictionary definitions of the word “social,” the company says its purpose is knowledge-sharing, not relationship-building. Users typically remain anonymous, do not upload contact lists, and cannot “friend” each other.
Reddit also rejects claims that the challenge is driven by business interests, stating it does not target or market to users under 18 and does not consider under-16s a meaningful audience.
0 Comments