Reddit filed a lawsuit challenging Australia’s social media ban for under-16s, arguing it violates political communication freedoms.
What’s Happening: Reddit filed a lawsuit on 13 December 2025 against Australia’s social media ban for users under 16, naming the Commonwealth of Australia and Communications Minister Anika Wells as defendants.
Why This Matters: Reddit lawsuit highlights broader questions about how Australian businesses will adapt marketing strategies in this new regulatory environment.
Australia’s world-first social media age restrictions, which took effect on 10 December 2025, have triggered their first major legal challenge, with Reddit filing a lawsuit that could reshape how businesses and platforms operate in the country.
The online discussion platform filed court documents on 13 December challenging the law that requires social media platforms to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services, according to Reuters. Reddit named the Commonwealth of Australia and Communications Minister Anika Wells as defendants, with lawyers Perry Herzfeld and Jackson Wherrett signing the filing, the court documents show.
The company argues the legislation violates the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Australian Constitution and restricts young people’s ability to engage in public discourse. “Australian citizens under the age of 16 will, within years if not months, become electors. The choices to be made by those citizens will be informed by political communication in which they engage prior to the age of 18,” the court filing statednper Reuters.
Legal challenge begins
Reddit’s lawsuit represents the second legal challenge to the legislation. The Digital Freedom Project announced in November 2025 that it would commence action in the High Court of Australia, also arguing the laws violate constitutional protections for political communication, according to media reports.
The timing is significant. Australia implemented the world’s first legally enforced minimum age for social media access on 10 December, affecting Reddit and nine other major platforms including Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Threads, Twitch and Kick. These platforms had opposed the rule for over a year before ultimately agreeing to comply.
Under the law, platforms must block users under 16 or risk fines of up to $49.5 million. Critically, teenagers and their caregivers face no penalties for accessing restricted platforms. The responsibility sits entirely with the platforms to implement reasonable steps preventing underage access.
To meet requirements, companies are relying on tools including age inference, which analyses online behaviour, and age estimation technologies that use selfies to verify age. The approach has raised privacy concerns among technology advocates and civil liberties groups.
The Australian Government’s Age Assurance Technology Trial, conducted by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme, concluded in June 2025 that there are no significant technological barriers to implementing the ban. However, the report acknowledged that verification methods require platforms to become proficient at profiling Australian children under 16.
Metrics already dropping
For small businesses, the policy’s impact is likely to materialise in engagement metrics and reach data as platforms begin enforcing the restrictions. Under-16s make up a significant percentage of social platform users, particularly on TikTok, meaning businesses may see metrics like reach, engagements, video views and followers decline.
The restrictions particularly affect businesses whose products appeal to younger demographics. However, the changes aren’t limited to youth-focused brands, as the removal of underage users could affect overall platform dynamics. The impact extends beyond simple audience loss. With platforms removing underage accounts, algorithms may shift to reflect older user behaviour patterns, potentially changing content prioritisation and engagement dynamics. The restrictions represent a significant shift for businesses that have built marketing strategies around social media access to younger audiences and their families.
Marketing alternatives emerge
The removal of easy access to younger audiences through social platforms may force businesses to revisit foundational marketing tactics that predate social media dominance. Alternative channels could include email newsletters, opt-in SMS updates, community apps, and website optimisation. Young people can still use search engines and read articles, meaning businesses may need to consider where under-16s spend time online outside social media platforms.
The shift requires creativity and potentially additional investment in marketing capabilities that many small businesses have deprioritised as social media became ubiquitous. Businesses may need to either prioritise internal marketing capabilities or allocate budget to outsource work to specialists.
Marketing diversification has long been considered sound risk management strategy. Businesses relying solely on one marketing channel face vulnerability when regulatory or platform changes occur. Building owned channels such as email, SMS and websites, where businesses control the rules, provides more stability. Collecting first-party data wherever possible ensures businesses maintain direct access to their audiences.
Research from Dynamic Business earlier this year found that 25% of Australian small businesses are focusing on growing their social media presence to attract international customers, recognising social media’s effectiveness compared to traditional methods. However, the survey also revealed that over a third of small business owners claim no social media platform has been effective for their business, suggesting diversification may prove valuable regardless of regulatory changes.
For businesses currently affected, immediate action focused on capturing audience contact information before losing access may prove valuable. Funnelling customers to opt in to owned channels, such as email and SMS updates, represents a priority for businesses seeking to maintain direct communication with their audiences.
The Reddit lawsuit, whilst focused on constitutional arguments around political communication, could have significant implications for how businesses operate in Australia’s digital landscape. If successful, the challenge might force modifications to the legislation that affect implementation timelines or requirements.
However, with 77% of Australians supporting the ban according to polling, and bipartisan political backing from federal, state and territory governments, substantial changes appear unlikely regardless of legal outcomes.
For small businesses, the regulatory shift represents a forced evolution in digital marketing strategy. Those building owned communication channels, diversifying beyond social platforms, and focusing on direct customer relationships may emerge better positioned than competitors who relied heavily on social media access to younger demographics.
As Reddit’s legal challenge proceeds through the High Court, businesses face immediate practical decisions about resource allocation, marketing channel diversification and customer communication strategies in an environment where regulatory certainty around social media access remains contested.
Keep up to date with our stories on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
