challenging Australia’s under-16 social media ban
The Digital Freedom Project is challenging Australia’s under-16 social media ban in the High Court of Australia.
-min.png)
This page brings together the key laws, human rights instruments, arguments and evidence that inform our case and explains why we believe the ban is both dangerous and ineffective.
Our Constitutional Challenge
The Digital Freedom Project has formally launched a High Court challenge against the Federal Government’s new social media ban for under-16s.
This case is not about defending social media companies. It’s about defending young Australians’ rights, privacy, and participation in democracy.
.png)
what we’re challenging
The government has passed laws that ban anyone under the age of 16 from holding accounts on social media platforms.
We are challenging these laws because they:
.svg)
Silence young Australians from political and civic conversation online
.svg)
Force Australians to hand over sensitive personal data
.svg)
Create serious privacy and security risks
Go further than necessary to protect children
We believe this law crosses a constitutional line.
The constitutional issue
The Australian Constitution protects freedom of political communication.
Social media platforms are now one of the main ways Australians:
Access political information
Discuss government policies
Organise community campaigns
Participate in civic life
.jpg)
By banning under-16s from these platforms entirely, the government is effectively cutting them off from democratic participation.
Our case argues that:
While protecting children is a legitimate goal,
A blanket ban on political communication is excessive, unjustified, and unconstitutional when safer and more balanced alternatives exist.
why this ban is dangerous
This law doesn’t just affect teenagers.
It sets a dangerous precedent for all Australians.
To enforce the ban, social media platforms are being pushed toward:
Government-issued ID checks
.svg)
Facial recognition technology
.svg)
Bank or financial verification
This means Australians may be forced to hand over:
.svg)
Identity documents
.svg)
Biometric data
.svg)
Financial details
These are the very types of data that have already been stolen, leaked, or hacked repeatedly across Australia in recent years, including from government departments and major corporations.
This isn’t safety. This is mass identity risk.
A better approach is possible
We need your help in the fight for the rights of Australians online.
We believe children should be protected, but not at the cost of:
.svg)
Civil liberties
.svg)
Privacy
.svg)
Constitutional rights
.svg)
Digital Security
There are smarter, safer alternatives:
.svg)
Improved platform safety requirements
.svg)
Stronger content moderation standards
.svg)
Digital education and literacy
.svg)
Parental choice and involvement
.svg)
Optional, privacy-preserving protections
A blanket ban is not the answer.
What we’re asking the High Court to decide
Through this case, we are asking the High Court to determine whether the ban violates the Constitution by unreasonably restricting political communication, especially for young Australians.This case will help define how far governments can go in controlling digital spaces and whether Australians still have a right to communicate freely online.
“Treaties and conventions the ban conflicts with”
Australia has committed itself to a range of international human rights obligations. While these instruments do not automatically override Acts of Parliament, the High Court and other courts regularly refer to them when interpreting Australian law.
.svg){kind=icon}
.png)
.png)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
which protects children’s rights to:
Freedom of expression and to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”
(Article 17) (OHCHR)
Freedom of association and peaceful assembly
(Article 15) (OHCHR)
Privacy, honour and reputation
(Article 16) (archive.crin.org)
access to information from a diversity of media sources, with States also responsible for protecting children from harmful content
(Article 17). (archive.crin.org)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
which protects
The right to privacy and protection from arbitrary or unlawful interference
(Article 17) (OHCHR)
freedom of expression and the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers”
(Article 19). (OHCHR)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
particularly the rights to privacy
(Article 12) and freedom of opinion and expression
(Article 19)
(Human Rights Commission)
.png)
Why We Oppose the Social Media Ban
A) Silencing young Australians
A declaration that the SMMA is invalid to the extent it burdens political communication by under 16s; or alternatively
.svg)
Research from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner shows that a majority of 14–17-year-olds access news online. (OAIC)
.svg)
Cutting off all under-16s from these spaces doesn’t just remove “entertainment”; it limits their access to information and their ability to participate in civic and political life.
.svg)
International organisations including UNICEF Australia, Save the Children and the Australian Human Rights Commission, among others, have all warned that blanket social-media age bans risk doing more harm than good, and that better platform safety, enforcement and education are more effective tools.
B) Privacy, surveillance & data-security risks
The ban cannot be enforced without large-scale age-verification. That means social media platforms, and often their third-party contractors, must collect extra personal information to prove users are over 16.
Government messaging suggests that “ID won’t be required”, but in practice the options already being floated by major platforms include:
uploading government ID
facial recognition / face scans
providing bank or credit-card details
.jpg)
Every new database becomes a high-value target for hackers
Every new database of ID photos, documents and biometric data becomes a high-value target for hackers. The recent Discord breach, where an age-verification support provider was compromised and up to 70,000 government IDs used for age assurance were exposed, including around 68,000 Australians, is a stark warning of what can go wrong. (iTnews)
.jpg)
Major Data Breaches in Australia
This is not a complete list. It highlights just some of the larger or more public data breaches that show how vulnerable our information is, even in major companies and government-linked systems.
Service NSW email breach
Compromised email accounts led to personal information of around 104,000 people being accessed after a phishing attack against Service NSW staff.
Optus data breach
A cyber attack on Optus exposed personal information (including ID document numbers) of roughly 10 million current and former customers, prompting multiple investigations and class actions.
Medibank Private hack
Criminals accessed data relating to about 9.7 million current and former Medibank, ahm and international customers, including some sensitive health-claim information that was later dumped online.
.png)
Latitude Financial breach
A large-scale attack compromised approximately 14 million customer records across Australia and New Zealand, including copies of driver’s licences and passports collected for identity checks.
HWL Ebsworth cyber attack
A major law firm acting for many Australian government agencies was hacked, with criminals releasing large volumes of government-related documents and raising concerns about exposure of sensitive public-sector data.
.png)
MediSecure prescription data breach
A cyber incident at electronic prescribing provider MediSecure led to unauthorised access to a database containing personal and health information linked to prescriptions, prompting a national investigation.
.png)
Discord age-verification breach
A third-party age-assurance provider used by Discord was hacked, with reports that around 70,000 government ID photos submitted for age checks were exposed. OAIC has confirmed approximately 68,000 affected users were Australian.
.png)
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner reports hundreds of notifiable data breaches every year, with malicious attacks the leading cause. (OAIC)
Mandating age-verification across every major social platform dramatically increases the number of places where our most sensitive information is stored – and therefore the chance that it will be stolen or leaked.
Further Reading & Sources
UNICEF Australia
position on the social media age ban
.svg){kind=logo}
Australian Human Rights Commission
position on the social media age ban
Save the Children & Suicide Prevention Australia
position on the social media age ban
OAIC Notifiable Data Breaches reports
(latest half-year)
(Human Rights Commission)
.svg)
Articles on the Discord age-verification breach
(The Guardian)
Disclaimer:
The information on this page is general in nature and is provided for public education and transparency. It is not legal advice. Any errors are ours, and we will update this page as more information becomes available.
Sign up to be a member of the digital freedom project
Join the Digital Freedom Project and become a member for free.
.svg)