Australia has made history as the first country in the world to implement a nationwide social media ban for anyone under 16. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 took effect on 10 December 2025, requiring platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, and Kick to take “reasonable steps” to block underage users or face fines of up to $49.5 million.
But as platforms scrambled to comply and over one million teenage accounts faced deactivation, a critical question emerged: does protecting children from online harms justify limiting their fundamental rights? Six months on, a clearer, and troubling, picture has emerged.
Update: June 2026: Since this article was first published in December 2025, the law has faced significant legal challenges and major platforms have been found in suspected breach. The eSafety Commissioner launched formal investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube in March 2026, and has threatened court action. Reddit’s High Court challenge and the Digital Freedom Project case are proceeding in tandem. Read the full update below.
What Has Happened Since December 2025
Platform Compliance: Falling Short
By mid-January 2026, the Australian Government announced that more than 4.7 million social media accounts held by individuals under 16 had been deactivated, removed or restricted. On the surface, a significant achievement. In practice, regulators quickly found the compliance picture was far more complicated.
On 31 March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner formally launched investigations into five major platforms, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, for suspected breaches of the law. The Commissioner’s compliance report identified serious gaps:
Platforms were failing to prompt users who had previously declared ages under 16 to complete fresh age checks. Systems were allowing children to repeat age-assurance tests until they obtained an over-16 result. Reporting pathways for underage accounts were inadequate. Controls preventing new under-16 account sign-ups were insufficient.
The eSafety Commissioner has indicated it will decide on next steps, including potential court action, by mid-2026. Under the Act, platforms face fines of up to $49.5 million per breach for systemic non-compliance.
The High Court Challenges: Two Cases, One Hearing
The constitutional challenge to the law has grown significantly since this article was first published. In December 2025, Reddit Inc. filed its own proceedings in the High Court of Australia, arguing the law infringes the implied freedom of political communication recognised in the Constitution, the same argument advanced by the Digital Freedom Project on behalf of teenagers Noah Jones and Macy Neyland.
Chief Justice Stephen Gageler ordered both cases to proceed in tandem, with Reddit’s constitutional issues to be determined first. A directions hearing was set for April 13, 2026, with the two matters progressing as coordinated special cases on the question of the law’s constitutional validity.
The government has remained defiant. Communications Minister Anika Wells has repeatedly stated the government will not be intimidated by legal challenges. NSW and South Australia have both sought to intervene in the proceedings to defend the legislation. A final hearing date has not yet been set as at the date of this update.
Phase 2: Expanding Beyond Social Media
In a development that received less public attention, the eSafety Commissioner’s Phase 2 Industry Codes, rolling out through March 2026, extended age-assurance obligations beyond social media platforms to a much broader range of digital services, including email providers, messaging apps, gaming platforms, search engines, hosting platforms, and app stores. The scope of Australia’s age-verification regime is therefore significantly wider than the original social media ban suggested.
The Case for Protection
The government’s rationale centres on the well-documented risks social media poses to young people. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described social media as a “scourge,” stating that families are “worried sick about the safety of our kids online.”
The evidence supporting these concerns is substantial. Research has consistently linked social media use in adolescents to rising rates of body image issues, eating disorders, anxiety, and depression. A study published in the Journal of Eating Disorders in Norway found that eating disorder pathology was common among teenagers, with 80% of girls reporting that social media — particularly Instagram and TikTok, influenced their perception of their appearance.
The National Eating Disorders Association reports that American high school students who use social media more than two hours daily are 1.6 times more likely to experience body image issues than those who spend less time online.
Beyond body image, research indicates that platforms like TikTok function as “dopamine machines,” delivering constant hits of the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for attention and impulse control, doesn’t fully develop until around age 25, leaving teenagers particularly vulnerable to these effects.
Then there’s the ever-present threat of online predators. According to the eSafety Commissioner, one in four young Australians has been contacted by someone they don’t know online. Bravehearts reports that since COVID-19, incidents of online grooming have reached an all-time high, with an 82% rise in online grooming crimes against children.
The Case Against: A Civil Rights Concern
Despite these legitimate safety concerns, human rights organisations have raised serious objections to the blanket ban approach.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned that the legislation may breach Australia’s international human rights obligations. The rights at stake include freedom of expression and access to information under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as rights protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Human Rights Law Centre has been particularly critical, stating that these laws “would undermine the human rights of young people in unacceptable ways, including their rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy.” They have also raised potential constitutional concerns, given the ban’s impact on political communication tools.
Amnesty International called the ban an “ineffective quick fix,” noting that “young people also have a right to express themselves online, access information and participate in the digital town square.”
Critics argue that social media provides crucial benefits for vulnerable young people. For LGBTQI+ teenagers, those with disabilities, Indigenous youth, and children in rural or remote areas, online platforms often serve as essential spaces for community, support, and access to information they may not find elsewhere. A director of a mental health service noted that 73% of young people across Australia accessing mental health support did so through social media.
The High Court Challenges
The constitutional debate is no longer theoretical, and has grown more complex since the law took effect. On 26 November 2025, the Digital Freedom Project filed proceedings in the High Court, with two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, as plaintiffs, arguing the ban violates the implied freedom of political communication.
Noah Jones expressed the frustration felt by many young people: “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.”
Reddit Inc. subsequently filed its own High Court challenge in December 2025. Chief Justice Gageler ordered both cases to progress in tandem, with Reddit’s constitutional issues addressed first. Both NSW and South Australia have sought to intervene to defend the law. No final hearing date has been set.
The outcome of the High Court proceedings will determine whether this law survives constitutional scrutiny, and will likely set a global precedent for how democracies can lawfully regulate children’s access to digital platforms.
A Rushed Process?
Beyond the substantive concerns, the legislative process itself attracted criticism. The Bill passed through both houses of Parliament in just nine days in November 2024, with the public given only one business day to make submissions. The Greens labelled the process “rushed and reckless.”
An open letter signed by 140 academics and experts argued that a ban is too blunt an instrument. Over 15,000 submissions were received in response to the call for feedback, yet critics argue young people themselves, the very group most affected, were largely excluded from meaningful consultation.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended that rather than a blanket ban, the government should consider introducing a statutory duty of care for social media companies, strengthening digital literacy and online safety education, and supporting parents and educators with tools and resources.
Where Does This Leave Us?
Six months after the law took effect, the picture is one of genuine complexity. The 4.7 million accounts deactivated in the first weeks looked promising, but the eSafety Commissioner’s subsequent investigations reveal that platforms moved quickly to game their own compliance systems. The legal challenges from both Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project are ongoing, and the constitutional question remains unresolved.
Polling suggests 70% of Australians support the ban, though only 35% are confident it will effectively block underage users. Parents themselves appear divided on enforcement, 53% say they’ll pick and choose which platforms to allow, with only 29% intending full compliance.
What’s clear is that this is not a black-and-white issue. The dangers of social media for young people are real and well-documented. So too are the benefits of online connection and communication, and the civil liberties concerns raised by human rights bodies are serious and legally grounded. Finding the right balance, one that protects without silencing, remains one of the most significant challenges facing Australian society.
If you have questions about civil rights or constitutional law matters, call us on: 02 9261 4281
Peter O'Brien is the Principal Solicitor of O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors and Australia's leading expert in intentional torts litigation, with over 25 years of experience securing landmark victories in malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment cases. Author of Intentional Tort Litigation in Australia and recipient of the Law Council of Australia President's Medal, Peter has achieved record-breaking compensation for clients and is widely recognised for his unwavering commitment to access to justice.
