24 hours / 7 days

National Legal Hotline

Call us now for immediate legal assistance, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All areas of law, Australia-wide

National Legal Hotline

24 hours / 7 days

Call us now for immediate legal assistance, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All areas of law, Australia-wide

Call us now

Home Australia Civil Law Constitutional Challenge to Under-16s Social Media Restrictions

Constitutional Challenge to Under-16s Social Media Restrictions

Yesterday, the High Court of Australia agreed to hear a constitutional challenge by two 15-year-olds, arguing that the world-first laws restricting the use of social media to people over 16 that are due to come into effect next week are unconstitutional. This page outlines what the plaintiffs are arguing, what other young people have said about the new laws, and the government’s response.

What are the under 16s social media restrictions?

A federal law, which makes changes to the Online Safety Act, will come into force on Thursday. It requires certain social media providers such as Facebook and TikTok to take reasonable steps to ensure that people under 16 are not using their platforms.

From Thursday on, social media users who may be under 16 will be required to prove their age if they want to continue using their accounts. Different social media providers will be using different methods to verify age. This may include using AI-powered age verification technology as well as asking users to provide government-issued identification.

The laws are being introduced in response to concerns about young people being exposed to harmful content and other risks online.

What are the plaintiffs arguing?

Noah Jones and Macy Neiland are arguing that the social media restrictions unfairly infringe on their implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication, and breach their privacy. Their claim names the federal government, the communications minister and the eSafety commissioner as respondents.

Freedom of political communication

The implied right to freedom of political communication means that parliaments in Australia must not make laws that unfairly limit the ability of people to engage in political discussions, unless such laws have a legitimate purpose and are proportionate in the circumstances.

Jones and Neiland are arguing that the laws will prevent them from taking part in political discussions online and that the laws are disproportionate and unnecessary, with other options being available to make social media safer for young people.

Breach of privacy

Jones and Neiland are also arguing that the laws infringe on their privacy as they will be required to submit to age verification processes, including being asked to provide identification. Other social media users are not required to do this.

In order to succeed, the plaintiffs will need to convince the High Court that the laws will lead to a reduction in political communication in Australia.

Digital Freedom Project

The claim is being supported by Digital Freedom Project, which was founded by John Ruddick, a member of the Libertarian Party and an MP in New South Wales.

The group’s website states that its goal is to oppose increasing government intervention in digital spaces, which is leading to censorship and restrictions in who can participate in online life.

It states, ‘The introduction of a social media ban for people under 16 is a violation of young people’s rights to stay connected and access information.’

Report on the views of young people

On 1 December 2025, a report was released that analyses the views of 86 people aged between 12 and 15, on the impending laws. The report, which was prepared by researchers at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and other academics, found that the majority of young people do not support the social media restrictions, with views including:

That the age restrictions are not enforceable
That there was a lack of consultation with young people before the introduction of the laws
That young people use social media for many reasons, including learning
That social media needs to be improved but the age restriction is not the solution
That the restrictions would lead to younger members of friendship groups being excluded from conversations and activity that is taking place on the affected platforms
That the decreased access to information by young people may lead to higher risk of other harms
That the government should be focused on more pressing issues such as climate change and the cost of living
That decisions about social media used by young people should be made by parents
That the restrictions were potentially harmful as social media is part of the everyday lives of young people and encourages communication and connection, as well as keeping up-to-date with what is going on in the world.

The research was conducted over a five-month period in response to the lack of young people’s voices in the national conversation about their social media use.

Conclusion

The federal government has defended the changes to social media laws, saying that the challenge is being brought by those with ulterior motives. The Communications Minister stated in question time that the government is prepared to defend the legal challenge.

The High Court challenge will not affect the commencement of the new laws, which will come into effect on 10 December.

The High Court may hear the application in a special hearing as early as February 2026.

If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.

Fernanda Dahlstrom

Content Editor

Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.

24 hours / 7 days

National Legal Hotline

National Legal Hotline

24 hours / 7 days

Constitutional Challenge to Under-16s Social Media Restrictions

What are the under 16s social media restrictions?

What are the plaintiffs arguing?

Freedom of political communication

Breach of privacy

Digital Freedom Project

Report on the views of young people

Conclusion

Fernanda Dahlstrom

Related Law Topics