US EditionReddit launches High Court challenge to Australia's social media ban for kids
- On Wednesday, US-based Reddit filed a challenge in the High Court of Australia seeking to overturn the world-first social media ban for under-16s under the Online Safety Amendment Act 2024, affecting 10 social media platforms.
- Reddit argues the Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 unconstitutionally restricts political communication by blocking young Australians and raises privacy risks including government ID and facial scans.
- Seeking court orders, Reddit asks to restrain Communications Minister Anika Wells from designating it age-restricted and says it never collected ages before building new age-verification systems.
- A directions hearing is expected in February, with a final judgment potentially late 2026, while two Australian teenagers backed by Digital Freedom Project secured a special hearing last week; Communications Minister Anika Wells said, `We will not be intimidated by big tech.`
- As the law is watched internationally, Australia is the first to deny parental approval and set a higher age limit of 16, while experts warn children may circumvent checks or move to less safe sites.
113 Articles
113 Articles
Reddit filed a lawsuit with the Australian Supreme Court challenging the application of social media restrictions for adolescents under the age of 16.
The Reddit online forum has filed a lawsuit against the Australian ban on social media for children and adolescents under 16 years of age.
Reddit also falls under the social media ban for children in Australia. However, the online platform does not see this and resists it - for two reasons.
Boston Herald
Independent EspañolBy ROD McGUIRK The Reddit platform appealed on Friday Australia's groundbreaking law that prohibits children under 16 years of age from having accounts on the world's most popular social networks. The California-based company's lawsuit, filed in the High Court, follows a case filed last month by the Sydney-based rights group, Digital Freedom Project. Both claims that the law is unconstitutional because it infringes implicit freedom of political …
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 38% of the sources are Center
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
