Australia’s High Court will hear a major constitutional challenge to the federal government’s new under-16 social media ban/digital ID law, fighting for free expression and digital privacy.
The case, The Digital Freedom Project Incorporated & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (S163/2025), was filed by the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), a New South Wales-based organization campaigning against government expansion in the online space, alongside two 15-year-old plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland.
We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.
The contested law, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, will prohibit anyone under sixteen from holding a social media account from December 10, 2025.
Platforms must verify user ages and impose restrictions or face penalties. This means eroding the privacy of all of their users. The plaintiffs say this “trespasses on the Constitutional right of freedom of political communication and is therefore unlawful.”
The statement of claim filed with the High Court describes how the new regime forces all Australians, not only minors, into intrusive age verification systems.
It argues that Macy Neyland “will be required to verify her age and identity to continue using her social media accounts,” which means “she will have her privacy compromised if she is required to upload personal identification (like a passport or driver’s license)” and that “she will lose her online anonymity, making her identifiable to social media companies and potentially others.”
Jones, who uses online media for civics and political engagement, claims the law “prevent[s] or substantially burden[s] his ability to access, receive, and participate in political communication online.”
The DFP submission argues that logged-out browsing is “not a meaningful substitute for the interactive functions which are integral to and necessary for contemporary modes of free political communication” for young Australians.
The group’s president, NSW MP John Ruddick, framed the issue as one that affects every citizen, not just minors. “This issue should concern every Australian. This ban is disproportionate and will trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian,” he said.
“Parental supervision of online activity is today the paramount parental responsibility. We do not want to outsource that responsibility to government and unelected bureaucrats.”
Ruddick went further, calling the law “the most draconian legislation of its type in the world,” adding, “Even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this.”
Both young applicants also spoke publicly about their reasons for joining the case.
Jones said, “We are the true digital natives and we want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world. We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16’s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
Neyland said, “Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow. Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views? If you personally think that kids shouldn’t be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don’t impose it on me and my peers. Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy. Bring us into safer spaces, with rules that work: age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns. We shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me.”
The Writ of Summons details the plaintiffs’ position that the legislation is “not reasonably appropriate and adapted” to achieve its stated purpose of protecting children from harm.
It outlines less invasive alternatives, including “parental-consent requirements (particularly for 14–15-year-olds), legislating an enforceable duty-of-care/design-safety obligations on providers, limiting the definition of ‘age-restricted social media platforms’…strengthened reporting/takedown standards; and digital literacy programs in schools.”
The filing also notes that the law “will have the effect of sacrificing a considerable sphere of freedom of expression and engagement for 13 to 15 year olds” and describes the blanket ban as “an oppressive, overreaching and inappropriate means to achieve the object of child protection.”
Bizarrely, in response to the lawsuit, Communications Minister Anika Wells accused the challengers of trying to intimidate the government. “Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges from people with ulterior motives, the Albanese government remains steadfastly on the side of parents and not of platforms,” she said.
“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 stand firm.”
Supporters of the challenge warn that the law effectively introduces a nationwide identity-check system for accessing social platforms.
Such a requirement will erode anonymity and create a precedent for wider digital identification systems, reshaping online participation in ways that reach far beyond the intended age group.
The High Court’s ruling will determine whether the government’s approach to online safety can survive constitutional scrutiny, and whether privacy and political communication will remain protected spaces in Australia’s digital democracy.
