Australia’s world-first ban on social media for under-16s is facing a major legal threat, with NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick announcing he will take the government to the High Court just weeks before the reform comes into force.
Ruddick, who will file “imminently” through the Digital Freedom Project he leads, argues the law violates the nation’s “implied constitutional freedom of political communication”.
“The guts of the matter is that to have a social media account in Australia from 10 December, you will need to prove to the social media platform you are over 16. That’s going to be a hassle for social media users and a huge administrative burden for the social media platforms,” he said.
“Lots of bright young kids who are curious about science or history or whatever learn so much from social media. Lots of people choose to have an anonymous social media account.”
With only limited sitting days left before the ban begins, Ruddick is racing to have the case heard, adding a new layer of uncertainty to a rollout already under pressure from parents, industry and safety advocates.
His challenge arrives as platforms prepare to deactivate more than one million Australian accounts belonging to users identified as under 16.
TikTok, Snapchat, Meta, YouTube and Threads will start contacting teenagers in the coming days, offering a stark choice: download your data, freeze your profile or lose everything.
Despite earlier warnings that mandatory age checks would be chaotic, intrusive and easily evaded, the platforms appear set to lean heavily on behavioural age-guessing tools already built into their systems.
These systems estimate a user’s age based on engagement patterns, such as likes and browsing habits, and will only refer people to third-party age-assurance apps like Yoti if they dispute being blocked.
Julie Dawson, chief policy officer at Yoti, downplayed the disruption, saying, “There’ll be a maximum of two to three weeks of people getting to grips with something that they do daily, and then it’s old news.”
Experts are far less certain. Trials showed the highest error rates occur among 16 and 17-year-olds, a cohort less likely to have formal identification and more likely to be misclassified.
Daswin De Silva, professor of computing at La Trobe University, told Reuters that “a lot of the technological methods of age verification will fail in that narrow band”. For those wrongly barred, he said, “it’s probably going to be service distortion, service failure, for a couple of days or weeks, maybe until the platforms figure this out”.
For the companies, the opposite error carries significant risks, with fines of up to 49.5 million dollars possible for incorrectly approving kids 15 years old and younger.
Alex Coates, CEO of Interactive, said the legal battle highlights the gap between intention and execution. “We should be petrified of what social media algorithms are feeding young Australians. This ban is a good first step, but tech-savvy teens will find workarounds. Enforcement will be challenging unless we address the real problem: the algorithm and the lack of digital literacy.”
Coates said the conversation cannot rely on technology alone. “As leaders and as parents, we need to step up. You can’t legislate good parenting, we need to model the right behaviours, talk openly about online risks, and create environments where being off-screen is normal.”
“We need a balanced approach to helping teens manage technology. The problem isn’t just age, it’s the endless stream of content designed for engagement, not safety,” she added.
Despite concerns over the rollout, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese continues to defend the reform, positioning it as a necessary step despite imperfections.
“We do argue, very strongly, that this is the government of Australia setting down what we expect to happen, including reminding social media companies that they have a social responsibility, and that they need to be conscious about their social licence, like other businesses,” he said.
“We want social media companies to do their best to comply with the law, and they have to show that they’re going to best endeavours to do so.”
The government remains “confident” the ban will succeed through community buy-in. “This will empower parents to talk with their kids,” he said. “That’s the history of social change for common good. And that’s what [the social media ban] is, this is about the common good.”
She compared the shift to the cultural acceptance of seatbelts and alcohol age limits: “People increasingly voluntarily comply.”
“Just as the banning of phones in school classrooms by many state governments hasn’t on day one led to perfect compliance, now it’s just accepted that there are improved educational outcomes, improved behaviour, improved social outcomes as a result,” he said.
As December 10 approaches, Australia’s attempt to lead the world on online child safety is entering its most volatile phase. Between a looming High Court showdown and platforms scrambling to identify millions of teenagers, the next few weeks will determine whether the ban emerges as a bold blueprint for other nations or an experiment stopped in its tracks before it begins.
