Australian Teens Challenge Landmark Social Media Ban in High Court

November 26, 2025

Sydney, Australia – Two 15-year-old Australians have launched a constitutional challenge in the High Court against the nation’s pioneering law banning children under 16 from social media, setting the stage for a landmark legal battle just two weeks before the ban takes effect.

Noah Jones and Macy Neyland argue the ban disregards the rights of children

The Legal Challenge

Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, represented by the digital rights advocacy group Digital Freedom Project, filed proceedings Wednesday arguing the ban violates the implied right to freedom of political communication in Australia’s constitution.

“The ban is a direct assault on young people’s right to freedom of political communication,” said Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, a Libertarian Party member of the New South Wales upper house. He called the legislation “the most draconian of its type in the world” and argued it “outsourced parental responsibility to the government and unelected bureaucrats”.

The plaintiffs argue the policy is disproportionate and that the government should instead invest in programs teaching digital safety and require platforms to implement age-appropriate features with stronger privacy protections.

Youth Perspective

Both teen plaintiffs expressed frustration with what they characterized as a blanket approach to online safety.

“We are the true digital natives who want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world,” said Noah Jones. “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence”.

Macy Neyland framed the issue as one of censorship, comparing it to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.” “Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” she said. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views? If you personally think that kids shouldn’t be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don’t impose it on me and my peers”.

Government’s Firm Stance

The Australian government responded defiantly to the legal challenge. Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament the government would not be intimidated by “threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives”.

“Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, and not platforms,” Wells said during Question Time. “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by big tech on behalf of Australian parents. We stand firm”.

The Impending Ban

Scheduled to take effect December 10, the law will require social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under 16 from creating accounts and to deactivate existing ones. Companies face substantial penalties for non-compliance, including **fines of up to AU$49.5 million** (approximately US$32 million) for serious or repeated breaches.

The ban currently applies to ten platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Kick, and Twitch. The government has indicated it may expand this list and is considering adding online gaming platforms.

Global Implications

Australia’s approach represents the world’s first total social media ban for users under 16, drawing international attention as governments worldwide grapple with protecting children online.

Other countries have implemented varying restrictions—the UK holds platforms accountable for harmful content, several European nations require parental consent for younger users, and U.S. states like Florida and Texas have attempted similar bans, though some have faced legal obstacles.

Enforcement and Concerns

Social media companies are now implementing age verification systems. Meta has begun notifying suspected underage users that their accounts will be deactivated starting December 4, offering options to download data or verify age using government ID or video selfies. Snapchat will use similar methods, including bank account verification, government ID, or facial age estimation.

Critics question both the effectiveness and privacy implications of these verification methods. Experts note facial recognition technology has significant failure rates, and digital rights advocates warn about data security risks from collecting sensitive identity documents.

Broader Opposition

Even within political circles, support for the ban shows cracks. Opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh, whose party voted for the ban, now expresses skepticism: “I’ve questioned whether it’s going to work or not. I think there’s a high risk of failure on this”.

Some children’s advocacy groups and the Australian Human Rights Commission have previously expressed reservations, suggesting alternative approaches like placing a legal duty of care on social media companies rather than implementing a blanket ban.

As the December 10 implementation date approaches, the High Court challenge represents the most significant obstacle to Australia’s groundbreaking but controversial attempt to reshape youth digital interaction.