A legal showdown looms over Australia’s age-based social media ban
Legal scholars warn that Australia’s world-first social media ban for under‑16s could face a constitutional challenge that reaches the High Court. At the center of the debate is the implied right to freedom of political communication, a constitutional protection that some experts say is stronger in theory than in practice for younger Australians.
YouTube, owned by Google, has emerged as the platform most likely to be challenged first, with questions about definitional scope and procedural fairness appearing in preliminary discussions. But the wider legal question, say scholars, extends beyond corporate interests and speaks to the rights of young citizens to engage in political discussion online.
The role of young activists in shaping the case
Among the voices cited by observers is 16-year-old climate advocate Ivy Sheng. A Year 10 student who uses Instagram to promote her podcast on environmental justice, Ivy describes social media as her political classroom and a primary avenue to reach peers and older voters alike. She argues that restricting access could hamper the next generation’s ability to participate in political debate as they grow toward voting age.
“There wasn’t really one specific moment where I suddenly switched on [politically], but I was about 12,” she says. Her comments underscore a broader view: many young people learn about politics and organize around issues like climate justice largely through social networks.
Experts say the impact of the ban on political conversation among young people could be a central argument in any constitutional challenge. The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) has also flagged the issue, suggesting that while protecting children from online harms is legitimate, the law currently offered a poor remedy for that aim.
How the challenge could unfold in the High Court
Defenders of the ban argue the objective is clear—safeguarding young people from online harms and excessive screen time. Critics counter that the policy burdens political communication and narrows a key digital space for civic engagement. The High Court would assess three main tests if a challenge proceeds: whether the law burdens political communication, whether the objective is legitimate, and whether the law is proportionate to that objective.
Constitutional scholar Anne Twomey has suggested the burden is real: a blanket ban on under‑16s from using social media could impede political debate across the board. As for proportionality, she notes a disconnect between stated aims and practical effects, particularly when platforms themselves are evolving in how they enforce age restrictions.
Universities and law centers emphasize that an outright ban may not be the least intrusive path. Some experts point to alternative mechanisms, such as a digital duty of care or more nuanced age-verification and harm-reduction policies that preserve access for young people to political information and discussion.
Barriers to a court challenge—yet why it could happen
Launching a constitutional case in the High Court is expensive and complex. Experts say the path is fraught with procedural hurdles, including notifying state and territory attorneys-general who might intervene. That complexity, paired with the costs and stress for any young party, helps explain why no case has reached a verdict so far.
Nevertheless, documents released under freedom of information laws indicate that Google and YouTube could press definitional and procedural grounds for a challenge, arguing that the platform should be treated as a video streaming service rather than a social medium and that the government’s changes were not implemented with adequate explanation or fairness.
What comes next for policy and public debate
As December 10 approaches and age checks become enforceable, legal observers say a constitutional challenge could gain momentum. The HRLC and other groups are preparing to engage with communities affected by the law, while Google has not publicly declared its next steps.
Beyond the courtroom, the debate touches on the balance between protecting young people online and preserving a space for political education and civic participation. Policy makers have proposed that any reform should consider safer, less restrictive alternatives that still empower young voices to be heard in public discourse.
