Two Australian Teens Take Social Media Ban to High Court

On 10 December 2025, Australia becomes the first country in the world to ban social media for everyone under 16.

Or at least, that’s the plan.

Two weeks before the law takes effect, two 15-year-olds—Noah Jones and Macy Neyland—have filed a constitutional challenge in Australia’s High Court, arguing the ban violates their right to political communication.

The case, backed by advocacy group Digital Freedom Project, represents more than one million Australian teenagers whose Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, and X accounts are scheduled to be deactivated in days.

The government says it’s not backing down. Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament: “We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by Big Tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm.”

What the Law Actually Does

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 passed the Australian Parliament on 29 November 2024.

Key provisions:

• Takes effect 10 December 2025 (one year transition period for platforms)
• Bans anyone under 16 from holding accounts on specified platforms
• Platforms that fail to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16 access face fines up to A$49.5 million (£25 million)
• Does NOT penalise children or parents—only platforms
• Currently applies to: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit
• YouTube initially exempted, then added in July 2025 after reports of significant harm
• Teens can still watch YouTube videos without logging in, but can’t upload, comment, or access personalised feeds

What platforms must do:

• Meta (Facebook/Instagram/Threads) announced on 19 November they’ll start removing under-16 accounts from 4 December
• Users will need to scan their faces or provide identity documents to prove age
• Other platforms expected to implement similar verification systems

The law has widespread public support: 77% of Australians surveyed favour the age limit, with 87% agreeing platforms that fail to comply should face stronger penalties.

The Constitutional Argument

The challenge centres on an “implied freedom of political communication” in the Australian Constitution.

Australia doesn’t have an express right to free speech like the United States. Instead, the High Court has established that because the Constitution requires parliamentarians to be “chosen by the people,” there must be freedom to communicate about political matters for that choice to be meaningful.

The teens’ argument: Social media is where political communication happens now. News is consumed, representatives are contacted, campaigns are organised, public debate occurs. Banning under-16s from these platforms effectively excludes them from civic participation.

Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, both 15, argue the law “robs” young Australians of their constitutional right to engage in political discussion.

Macy Neyland said: “Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow… we shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me.”

The government’s counter-argument: The law is “content neutral”—it doesn’t target political speech specifically. It applies to all social media content equally. The purpose (protecting children from cyberbullying, predation, harmful content, and addictive design) is legitimate, and the restriction is proportionate to that purpose.

Former High Court Chief Justice Robert French, reviewing a similar South Australian draft law, said: “The implied freedom of political communication would not seem to be engaged. The restriction is content neutral, is not directed at political speech and, in any event, is a reasonable and proportionate means for a legitimate purpose.”

Will the Challenge Succeed?

Legal experts are sceptical.

Why the challenge faces an uphill battle:

1. Very few teens use social media for political engagement The Conversation notes that “very few 13-, 14- or 15-year-olds use social media to create or engage with political content. Those who do are doing so only occasionally.”

For a law to be struck down as unconstitutionally burdening political communication, the burden must be significant. If only a tiny percentage of affected users actually engage with political content, courts may view the burden as minor.

2. Other age restrictions haven’t been challenged successfully Australia already bans:

• Selling video games with certain ratings to teenagers (even though games may contain political content)
• Selling cinema tickets for certain ratings to teenagers (even though films may contain political content)
• Selling alcohol to under-18s (even though political discussions happen in pubs)
• Allowing unaccompanied minors in pubs (even though there’s “a bit of political banter at the bar”)

None of these have been found unconstitutional. Why would social media be different?

3. The government has a strong justification Research linking social media overuse to mental health harm, cyberbullying, body image issues, and misinformation gives the government a compelling case that this is about child protection, not suppressing speech.

4. The timing works against the teens The Digital Freedom Project is asking for an urgent injunction to prevent the law taking effect on 10 December while the case proceeds.

Injunctions like this are rare. Unless the High Court grants one, the law takes effect as planned—even if the constitutional challenge later succeeds (which would only help future teenagers, not current ones).

Who’s Behind the Challenge?

The Digital Freedom Project is led by John Ruddick, a Libertarian Party member of the New South Wales state Parliament.

The organisation describes itself as advocating for “the rights and freedoms of individuals, particularly young people, to access, use and communicate through digital and social media technologies.”

Notably, the Digital Freedom Project hasn’t disclosed who’s funding the case. Australian media has reported that YouTube also threatened a High Court challenge “on the grounds the ban burdened political communication”—raising questions about whether tech companies are backing or coordinating with the teens’ lawsuit.

The government certainly thinks so. Minister Anika Wells’ statement about not being “intimidated by Big Tech” suggests she views this as platform-backed resistance, not just concerned teenagers.

What This Means for Under-16s in Australia

Unless the High Court intervenes in the next few days, here’s what happens on 10 December:

Immediate impact:

• Over one million accounts deactivated
• No new accounts can be created by under-16s
• Teens lose access to friends, communities, content they’ve created
• Group chats disappear
• Online social lives effectively end (on major platforms)

What teens can still do:

• Watch YouTube videos without logging in
• Use messaging apps like WhatsApp (not classified as social media)
• Access educational platforms
• Use email
• Browse websites

What they can’t do:

• Post on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook
• Upload YouTube videos or comment
• Participate in Reddit discussions
• Stream on Twitch
• Engage on X (formerly Twitter)

Platform enforcement period: Platforms have a one-year transition period to implement “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16 access. During this time, they’re expected to develop and deploy age verification systems.

Meta is already ahead—implementing face scanning and ID verification from 4 December, six days before the legal deadline.

The Broader Debate

This case highlights a tension that every country considering age restrictions will face: how do you balance protecting children from genuine harms with preserving their rights to participate in society?

Arguments for the ban:

• Social media companies have proven unwilling to self-regulate
• Mental health data shows real harm to young teenagers
• Current age 13 minimums are completely unenforced
• Parents feel overwhelmed trying to restrict access individually
• Children’s developing brains are particularly vulnerable to addictive algorithms

Arguments against the ban:

• It’s a blunt instrument—punishes all teens for harms affecting some
• Excludes vulnerable groups who rely on online communities (LGBTIQ+ youth, rural/remote kids, young people with disabilities)
• Assumes parents can’t make decisions for their own families
• May push teens to “darker corners of the internet”
• Doesn’t address underlying problems with platform design
• Enforcement through age verification raises privacy concerns

The Digital Freedom Project argues the government should have pursued alternatives like:

• Parental consent pathways for 14-15 year olds
• Platform “duty of care” obligations
• Safe design settings by default
• Targeted content moderation rather than blanket bans
• Age-appropriate feature restrictions (rather than total exclusion)

What Happens Next

The High Court will decide whether to grant an injunction preventing the law from taking effect on 10 December while they hear the full case.

If they refuse the injunction (likely), the law takes effect as scheduled. The constitutional challenge would continue, but wouldn’t help the million-plus teens losing their accounts next week.

If the teens win the full case months from now, it would overturn the ban. If they lose, Australia’s approach becomes a tested model for other countries.

Who’s watching:

• Norway (proposing age 15 minimum)
• France (already requires parental consent for under-15s)
• UK (Online Safety Act includes age verification provisions)
• Several US states (Utah, Florida have passed similar laws, currently facing legal challenges)
• European Union countries exploring restrictions

Australia is the test case. The stakes extend far beyond two teenagers in Sydney.

The Bottom Line

On 10 December, one of two things happens:

Scenario 1 (most likely): The law takes effect. Over one million Australian teenagers lose their social media accounts. Platforms implement age verification. Parents either comply or help their children find workarounds. The constitutional challenge proceeds slowly through the courts while the ban is in force.

Scenario 2 (unlikely): The High Court grants an urgent injunction. The 10 December deadline is suspended. The case is heard on an expedited timeline. The government and teens present their arguments. The Court decides whether excluding 13-15 year olds from social media unconstitutionally burdens political communication.

Either way, this case will shape the global conversation about children, social media, and rights.

Two 15-year-olds are asking Australia’s highest court a question every parent is also asking: where’s the line between protection and exclusion?

We’ll know the answer very soon.

Source: Reuters