Lawyers for the Australian government have defended the country’s ban on social media use by children under 16, telling the highest court that the restrictions are justified. The legal challenge could carry implications well beyond Australia. The court adjourned on Wednesday after a two-day hearing and is expected to deliver its verdict in the coming months.
Government cites mental health risks to children
Government lawyers argued on Wednesday that social media exposes young people to several dangers, including depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. They called the ban “modest in extent” and said its limits on political expression were “indirect”. Australia became the first country to enforce such a ban last year, prompting France and the United Kingdom to explore similar rules.
Reddit and a rights group dispute the law’s reach
The case was brought by the US platform Reddit and the Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project. Both argue the measure is disproportionate and breaches the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. Reddit told the court it should not have been named among the 10 age-restricted platforms, calling the ban “ill-targeted” and “over broad”.
Under the law, platforms face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($34.7m) if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove accounts held by under-16s. The judges will now weigh whether the ban’s benefits outweigh its restrictions on political expression.
Account closures and enforcement plans under review
Government data published in July showed five million social media accounts had been closed since the ban took effect in December. The government has nonetheless conceded that many under-16s can still get around age-verification checks. In June, it said it was considering tougher laws behind the ban and was preparing an enforcement lawsuit.
A defeat for the government could set back other countries that want to follow Australia’s lead.
