Reddit has filed a formal legal challenge in Australia’s High Court against the nation’s landmark social media restrictions. The California-based platform initiated the court action on Friday, December 12, 2025. The challenge follows the enforcement of the Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law that came into effect on Wednesday, December 10, 2025.​
Reddit files formal legal challenge against social media restrictions
World-First Legislation Takes Effect
Australia became the first nation globally to enforce a legally mandated minimum age for accessing social media platforms. The legislation applies to ten major services including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, YouTube, Threads, Kick, Twitch, and Reddit. The law raises the minimum age requirement from 13 to 16 years for accessing these platforms.​
World-First Legislation Takes Effect
Regulatory Penalties and Compliance Measures
Tech companies face significant financial penalties for non-compliance with the restrictions. Platforms must pay fines up to AUD 49.5 million (USD 32.9 million) if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent underage users from accessing their services. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant sent compulsory information notices to all ten affected platforms on Thursday. The commissioner demanded data regarding how many underage accounts the platforms had deactivated since the law took effect.​
The legislation requires platforms to employ various age-verification techniques. Companies must implement age inference based on user activity patterns. Some services utilise facial recognition technology through selfies. Others demand uploaded identification documents or linked financial accounts to verify user ages.​
Regulatory penalties and compliance measures faced by tech companies
Reddit’s Constitutional Challenge
Reddit argues the law violates Australia’s implied freedom of political communication enshrined in the nation’s Constitution. The platform claims the restrictions prevent teenagers from engaging in age-appropriate community discussions, including political conversations. Reddit’s court documents assert that the political opinions of minors influence electoral decisions of current voters, including parents and educators.​
The platform contends that the law is “invalid on the grounds of the implied freedom of political communication”. Alternatively, Reddit requests the court prevent the government from listing Reddit among restricted age-limited platforms. Reddit employed barrister Perry Herzfeld, SC, to lead the legal challenge, with support from prominent law firm Thomson Geer.​
Reddit’s Stated Concerns About the Legislation
Reddit maintains that the law forces “intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes” on both adults and minors. The platform claims the restrictions isolate teenagers from engaging in age-appropriate community experiences. Reddit criticises the ban as creating “an illogical patchwork” regarding which platforms face restrictions and which avoid them.​
The company released an official statement regarding its concerns. “We believe there are more effective ways for the Australian government to accomplish our shared goal of protecting youth,” Reddit stated. The platform added that “the SMMA law carries some serious privacy and political expression issues for everyone on the internet”.​
Reddit further explained its position through court filings. The platform stressed that “While we agree with the importance of protecting people under 16, this law has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors, isolating teens from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions), and creating an illogical patchwork”.​
Also Read: Cancer Gene Scandal: Nearly 200 Children Linked To Single European Sperm Donor
Reddit’s Argument for Exemption
Reddit maintains it differs fundamentally from traditional social media platforms in its structure and function. The platform operates primarily as a forum for knowledge exchange rather than conventional social networking. Reddit does not encourage users to establish “friendships” with each other or to share personal photographs. The service lacks the real-time interaction features and activity feeds that drive constant engagement on typical social networks.​
The company emphasises that users typically remain anonymous through pseudonymous accounts on topic-based communities. Reddit does not maintain contact lists or address books like other platforms. Most content on Reddit remains accessible without requiring an account. The Apple App Store rates Reddit for users aged 17 and above, not for younger audiences.​
Reddit further notes that 3.7 million Australian users access the platform monthly. The company’s advertising does not specifically target individuals under 18. Reddit argues these factors distinguish it from platforms the government intended to restrict through the SMMA legislation.​
Ongoing Compliance and Future Proceedings
Despite the legal challenge, Reddit confirmed it will continue complying with the law. The platform stated this action represents no attempt to evade compliance obligations. Reddit emphasised it would continue engaging with the eSafety Commissioner throughout the legal process. The company has already implemented age-assurance measures since Wednesday, December 10.​
The High Court will hold a preliminary hearing in late February to address the Digital Freedom Project’s separate challenge. The Digital Freedom Project filed its own constitutional challenge last month on behalf of two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland. Constitutional law experts suggest the government may struggle to justify the law if courts find it only marginally reduces political discourse in Australia.​
The outcomes of Reddit’s legal challenge could significantly impact all ten platforms subject to the SMMA legislation. A successful declaration could invalidate the law or exempt the platform from its restrictions. Both suits claim the law is unconstitutional because it infringes on Australia’s implied freedom of political communication.​
