From 10 December, social media firms must ensure Australians aged under 16 cannot have accounts.

SYDNEY — Australian teenagers are challenging the federal government’s new minimum social-media age law, arguing in a High Court bid that authorities should focus on banning harmful content instead of restricting young users’ access to online platforms. Their petition, filed this week by two 15-year-olds with support from digital-rights advocates, seeks to block the legislation set to take effect nationwide in December 2025.

Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube must verify users’ ages and prevent anyone under 16 from maintaining an account. Companies that fail to comply face multimillion-dollar penalties issued by the eSafety Commissioner. The government argues the law protects minors from the mental-health risks, exposure to explicit or violent content and online grooming associated with adolescent social-media use.

But the teenagers’ petition contends the ban undermines young people’s rights to political communication and participation in public life, a freedom implied under Australia’s Constitution. Instead of removing teens from digital spaces, they say the government should require platforms to remove harmful material more effectively. Their lawyers maintain the law is overly broad, punitive and technologically difficult to enforce without compromising privacy.

Youth Advocates Argue Ban Misdiagnoses the Problem

The petitioners argue the age-restriction approach amounts to banishing minors from the modern public square. They maintain that for many young people, social media serves as an essential tool for civic engagement, education, community building and support networks.

“Teenagers should not be treated as the problem,” one petitioner said in a statement released through the Digital Freedom Project, a civil-liberties organization backing the case. “The problem is harmful content that platforms continue to allow. Don’t ban us—ban the content that puts us at risk.”

Youth advocates add that the ban may create unintended consequences. By forcing minors off mainstream platforms with established moderation systems, they argue teenagers may migrate toward less regulated or anonymous networks where harmful content proliferates unchecked. Researchers who study online behavior warn such shifts could increase exposure to predatory interactions or extremist material.

A 2024 survey by the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition found that 82% of respondents between ages 13 and 17 use social media for schoolwork, social connection or accessing mental-health resources. More than two-thirds said a ban would cut them off from support communities, including peer groups and youth-led activism spaces.

Government Defends the Law as a Necessary Safety Measure

The federal government maintains the law is an essential step in safeguarding minors online. Officials cite rising concerns about social-media-related anxiety, body-image issues and cyberbullying among young users. The eSafety Commissioner reports a steady increase in complaints of online harassment and illegal content involving children, including a 30% rise in harmful-content reports in the past two years.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has said the age-limit law reflects growing global momentum toward stronger protections, noting similar discussions in the European Union and several U.S. states. “The objective is simple: to protect Australian children from harm,” Rowland said during parliamentary debates. “We are asking platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent young users from being targeted by unsafe digital environments.”

The government argues age verification—likely to involve parental consent and identity checks—is necessary to ensure platforms comply with safety standards. Officials say the law does not restrict general internet access, only the creation of accounts on major social-media platforms most associated with harmful content exposure among minors.

Tech Industry Raises Concerns About Feasibility and Privacy

Major technology companies have expressed concerns about the operational challenges of enforcing the age limit. Industry groups say reliable age-verification systems remain difficult to implement without collecting substantial personal data, which could risk user privacy.

Digital-rights experts warn that mandatory age checks could lead to expanded databases containing sensitive identification information for millions of Australians. They argue that the potential for data breaches could introduce new vulnerabilities, potentially exposing minors and adults alike to identity theft or surveillance concerns.

Several platforms have called for a “risk-based approach” focused on removing harmful content, improving algorithm transparency and enhancing parental-control tools rather than enforcing blanket age restrictions.

Legal Battle Tests Boundaries of Online Regulation

The teens’ High Court challenge places Australia at the center of an international debate over how governments should regulate youth online safety. Similar challenges abroad have cited free-speech obligations and the need for proportional regulation. Australia does not have an explicit bill of rights, but past High Court rulings recognize an implied freedom of political communication.

Lawyers for the petitioners argue that excluding young people from social media diminishes their ability to engage in public debate and access information necessary for democratic participation. They contend a more narrowly tailored law—requiring platforms to remove harmful content promptly, limiting addictive design features or establishing stronger parental-consent systems—would achieve safety goals without infringing on constitutional freedoms.

Legal scholars say the case could clarify the boundaries of government authority over digital spaces and set a precedent for future online-safety laws. A ruling in favor of the petitioners could require Parliament to rewrite parts of the act or develop a more targeted regulatory approach.

Safety Concerns Persist Amid Global Push for Reform

Data from the Australian Institute of Family Studies shows that 70% of teenagers encounter potentially harmful content online, including self-harm material, hate speech or sexual content. These statistics have prompted governments worldwide to consider stricter oversight of social-media practices.

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and various U.S. proposals similarly emphasize curbing the spread of harmful content and requiring platforms to take proactive measures to ensure young users’ safety. Australia’s new law goes further by banning under-16 access entirely.

Critics, including some psychologists, argue that banning access may not address root causes such as inadequate moderation, rapid content dissemination and algorithmic amplification of harmful posts. They advocate for increased transparency, improved reporting mechanisms and stricter penalties for platforms that fail to remove harmful content quickly.

Looking Ahead

The High Court is expected to hear preliminary arguments early next year. If the teenagers obtain an injunction, enforcement could be delayed while the court considers the constitutional questions.

The outcome may influence future regulatory frameworks in Australia, shaping how policymakers balance online safety with digital rights. For now, the debate highlights a fundamental tension: whether protecting young people requires removing them from social media entirely or restructuring online environments to make them safer for all users.

As governments, tech companies, parents and youth advocates continue to examine the risks associated with digital platforms, the case underscores a growing global question—how to protect young people online without excluding them from the essential digital spaces where modern life increasingly unfolds.