Australia’s unprecedented ban on social media accounts for users under sixteen is now before the High Court, challenged by two teenagers who argue the law infringes on implied constitutional freedoms, but legal analysts say the legislation is likely to survive judicial scrutiny given its clear public safety objectives and statutory design.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, introduced by the Albanese government and enforced from December ten, compels major platforms to take “reasonable steps” to exclude under-sixteen users or face fines approaching fifty million Australian dollars.

The challenge contends that the law unduly restricts young people’s participation in online public discourse and political communication, rights the plaintiffs say are implied by Australia’s constitutional system.

In filings before the High Court, the teenagers, supported by a rights advocacy group, argue that the social media ban has a disproportionate impact on youth engagement and expression, potentially impeding access to information and civic interaction as they near voting age.

They assert that the law’s broad design fails to balance online safety with freedom of communication, suggesting alternative safety mechanisms could achieve similar protective aims without a sweeping prohibition.

The government, however, has defended the legislation by emphasising its intent to protect children from harmful content, exploitation and mental health risks associated with prolonged exposure to social media platforms, framing the measure as a legitimate regulation of digital services rather than a restriction on speech.

Constitutional experts note that Australia’s charterless constitution has a narrowly implied freedom of political communication that applies primarily to limitations on electoral and governmental discourse, and courts have historically permitted significant regulatory leeway for public health and safety measures.

They point out that, while the case raises important questions about digital rights, the High Court has previously upheld broad legislative schemes addressing social welfare, national security and public safety, suggesting that the minimum age law could be viewed within a similar regulatory category.

Additionally, the legislation’s focus on platform obligations, rather than direct criminal penalties against individuals, further aligns the law with permissible regulatory frameworks.

The government’s position underscores the unique risks that social media environments pose for young people, arguing that conventional parental controls and voluntary industry safeguards have fallen short.

Officials maintain that the statutory scheme is tailored to encourage safer online environments without affecting adult access or broader digital freedoms for older Australians.

While some digital rights organisations have expressed concern about precedent, others acknowledge the court challenge as a rigorous forum to clarify the balance between safety and free expression.

With the High Court likely to deliberate into early 2026, analysts suggest that the legal test will focus on proportionality and legislative purpose rather than an outright rejection of the law’s aims, making a survival outcome the most plausible judicial result.