Reddit’s challenge to Australia’s under-16 social-media account rules asks the High Court whether Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication. Infobae reported that the hearing began on November 3, 2026; the High Court docket lists Full Court hearings in Canberra for November 3 and 4.
NeoTeo previously covered the challenge and its scheduled hearing dates in earlier coverage of the case. This article focuses on the arguments reported from the hearing.
The constitutional question in Case S166/2025
The High Court identifies the case as Reddit, Inc. v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor, S166/2025. Its case summary frames the issue as whether Part 4A is invalid, wholly or partly, because it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication. That is the constitutional question the court is considering.
The docket lists plaintiff submissions dated August 28, 2026, defendant submissions dated September 25, a plaintiff reply dated October 16, and oral-argument outlines dated November 3. It also lists the two Full Court hearing dates in Canberra.
Reddit’s reported arguments focus on reach and account safety
Infobae reported that Reddit argued the age checks did not work well and that evidence of the restrictions’ effectiveness was limited. The company also argued that young people browsing without accounts could lose access to safety features tied to an account.
Reddit’s arguments also addressed political communication. The company contended that social media gives young people a reach they could not get as readily through other means. These are arguments advanced by Reddit in the case.
Questions reported during the hearing
Infobae reported that Justice Jacqueline Gleeson asked how central political communication is to most children. Justice James Edelman asked whether young activists could influence public opinion without social media. Reddit counsel Perry Herzfeld argued that platforms offer young people a reach unavailable by other means.
Infobae also reported that Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the law. The reported exchanges describe questions and arguments during the hearing; the court’s stated constitutional issue remains the question set out in its case summary.
What Part 4A requires
The High Court’s summary describes a duty for providers of certain kinds of social-media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent users under 16 from having accounts. The case concerns that account requirement and its constitutional effect.
