Australian teen takes High Court to court over under‑16 social‑media ban, exposing regulatory gaps

Four months after Australia introduced its under‑16 social‑media ban, Sydney teenager Noah Jones says his online experience has been largely unchanged – he has not been removed from any platform.

Jones recounts a brief hiccup on Instagram that he quickly resolved, and notes a friend who temporarily lost access to Snapchat but managed to circumvent it. "That’s pretty much my whole experience of the ban," he says.

Despite his personal continuity, Jones is now a plaintiff in a High Court challenge mounted by the Digital Freedom Project, which argues the ban infringes the implied constitutional right to political communication.

The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman‑Grant, recently disclosed that more than 5 million accounts have been deactivated since the policy’s rollout, yet over two‑thirds of teenagers remain active on the ten targeted platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kick, Threads and Reddit. Young users are reportedly bypassing facial‑age estimation tools, especially when they are within two years of turning 16.

Further eSafety findings reveal that 66 % of parents say platforms did not request age verification, and when ages of 14 or 15 were detected, platforms often prompted users to undergo facial‑recognition checks and simply adjust the displayed age rather than enforce deactivation.

Communications Minister Anika Wells has urged the commissioner to "throw the book at" non‑compliant services, noting that fines could reach up to $49.5 million per breach in federal court. However, any penalties are likely to be considered only after the High Court decides the law’s validity.

Wells also pledged new legislation imposing a digital duty of care on platforms, obliging them to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. The bill is slated for parliamentary debate later this year.

The Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick, contends that banning under‑16s from holding accounts effectively silences their participation in political discourse, as logged‑out viewing does not permit meaningful engagement.

Legal scholars are divided. Prof. Sarah Joseph of Griffith University warns that an ineffective law could breach the implied freedom of political communication, while Monash University’s Prof. Luke Beck argues that the law’s purpose is to compel platforms to enforce age restrictions, not to achieve 100 % compliance.

Beck points out that most legislation is not perfectly effective – citing murder laws and age‑restricted media – and that courts typically assess whether a law is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

The government acknowledges that the age limit imposes a burden on political communication but maintains the measure is justified to mitigate risks from algorithmic recommendation systems, endless feeds, and other features that can amplify harm.

Jones will turn 16 in August, at which point the ban would no longer apply to him. His mother, Renee Jones, says she faced online backlash for opposing the ban, with some critics even suggesting her children be taken away.

"It’s my right to choose how I raise my children in a digital world," she asserts, emphasizing strict household rules: no devices in bedrooms, phones locked at night, and shared passwords for parental oversight.

Jones acknowledges the downsides of social media – bullying and explicit content – but stresses that his generation relies on these platforms for news and forming opinions, more so than traditional media.

Both Jones and his mother argue the legislation was rushed and is failing to address the core concerns about harmful content, leaving many teens, like Noah, to navigate the digital landscape largely unchanged despite the ban.