menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Two teens have launched a High Court challenge to the under-16s social media ban. Will it make a difference?

8 1
yesterday

Two teenagers are taking the federal government to the High Court. They argue the ban on social media accounts for under-16s is unconstitutional because it interferes with free political communication.

The ban is due to take effect on December 10.

Will the High Court challenge make any difference?

Due to a 1998 US law, social media platforms’ terms of service already set a minimum age of access of 13 years.

Australia’s new law imposes an obligation on some social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 from having an account with the platform. The law does not impose obligations on under-16s themselves or on their families. This means only social media platforms can be guilty of breaking the law.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has announced the law applies to Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit.

The practical effect is that Australians aged under 16 will not be able to have accounts on those and similar social media platforms. But under-16s will still be able to access content on those platforms if they have a logged-out functionality.

The federal government says the law’s purpose is to “enhance the online safety and wellbeing of young people”.

The Office of Impact Analysis’

© The Conversation