Australian government concedes no scientific consensus on social media harms for teenagers – but ‘credible risks’ justify ban

Commonwealth tells high court its proposed laws to let users opt out of algorithms would ultimately have the same effect as the ban

Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

The Australian government has conceded it implemented the “world-leading” under-16s social media ban before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use, but argued the “credible risks” of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the policy.

In its defence against a high court challenge of the ban, the government has also argued its proposed digital duty of care legislation, allowing users to opt out of social media features such as algorithms, would ultimately have the same effect as the ban, if implemented.

US-based platform Reddit has challenged the under-16s social media ban in the high court as one of two cases against the ban, expected to be heard jointly before the end of 2026.

In Reddit’s submission to the court last month, it argued the ban represented a burden on the implied freedom of political communications, while also not addressing the risk of harm.

The company pointed to the exclusion of some platforms from the ban, and the design features the ban was aiming to address still available to users without accounts, as well as the reported number of children under 16 who have maintained accounts or registered new ones since the ban came into effect in December last year.

Reddit pointed to the government’s proposed digital duty of care legislation, stating: “If the commonwealth wishes to address a problem with content to young people, it could address it directly as part of this proposal.”

Reddit told the court that “there is no scientific consensus about whether there is a causal link between social media use and particular harms”.

In the federal government’s defence, filed on Friday, the Australian government argued the agreed facts in the case identified there were “significant credible risks” of children developing addictive behaviours, disrupted sleep, and worsening depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours or ideation.

“Uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people,” the government’s submission stated.

“The existence of credible risks of harm and credible causal pathways between account-related design features and those risks justifies the parliament’s decision to enact a precautionary protective measure before scientific consensus establishes that it will be effective.”

The Australian government also argued its proposed digital duty of care legislation would effectively require the features targeted by the ban to not be in operation for under-16s on social media.

“Their proper application would require the same action [as the ban]: namely preventing children having accounts or providing children with accounts that do not have any of the [same] features.”

The Australian government has claimed in its defence that the ban has already produced “substantial practical action”, pointing to nearly 5m accounts being removed in December last year, with Reddit itself suspending 43,962 accounts between December and March this year.

The government has since boosted the powers of the eSafety commissioner and doubled the fines that can be sought to nearly $100m for non-compliance, as part of measures to attempt to force the platforms to weed out remaining under-16 users.

The peak US body for tech companies, NetChoice, is also seeking to be heard in the case, alongside digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). NetChoice members include Meta, Twitch, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, X and YouTube – which are all included in the social media ban.