Teens Challenge Australia's Social Media Ban in Landmark Court Case

Wed Nov 26 2025 23:27:51 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

Two Australian teenagers, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, launch a High Court challenge against a law that restricts social media access for individuals under 16, arguing it infringes on their rights to free communication.

In a significant legal move, 15-year-olds Noah Jones and Macy Neyland are contesting Australia's new social media regulation that prevents minors from accessing these platforms. Supported by the Digital Freedom Project, they argue the ban violates children's rights and suppresses vital communication avenues. The challenge reflects concerns about the impact on vulnerable youth and proposes alternative methods for online safety without limiting access.

Australia's landmark social media ban for children is being challenged in the nation's highest court, with two teenagers alleging the law is unconstitutional as it robs them of their right to free communication.

From 10 December, social media firms - including Meta, TikTok and YouTube - must ensure that Australians aged under 16 cannot hold accounts on their platforms.

The law, which is being watched closely around the world, was justified by campaigners and the government as necessary to protect children from harmful content and algorithms.

However, 15-year-olds Noah Jones and Macy Neyland - backed by a rights group - will argue the ban completely disregards the rights of children.

We shouldn't be silenced. It's like Orwell's book 1984, and that scares me, Ms Neyland said in a statement.

After news of the case broke, Communications Minister Anika Wells told parliament the government would not be swayed. We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm, she said.

The Digital Freedom Project (DFP) announced the case had been filed in the High Court on Wednesday. Teenagers rely on social media for information and association, and a ban could hurt the nation's most vulnerable kids - young people with disability, First Nations youth, rural and remote kids, and LGBTIQ+ teenagers - the most, the group said on their website.

Led by a New South Wales parliamentarian, John Ruddick, DFP said their challenge would hinge on the ban's impact on political communication and whether it was proportional to the law's aims.

Other measures to improve online safety should be used instead, the group argued, pointing to digital literacy programmes, the forced introduction of age-appropriate features for platforms, and age assurance technologies which have greater privacy protections.

Mr. Jones argued the government's policy was lazy. We are the true digital natives and we want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world... They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.

Australian media have previously reported that Google, which owns YouTube, has also been considering launching a constitutional challenge.

Though opposed by the tech companies who will be charged with enforcing it, the ban is supported by most Australian adults, according to polls. However, some mental health advocates say it may cut kids off from connection, and others say it could push youngsters to even less-regulated corners of the internet.