Australia's government has told the High Court it enacted its landmark ban on social media accounts for under-16s before scientists had reached consensus on whether the platforms actually cause mental health harm. Yet officials argue that waiting for certainty would have been reckless, insisting that "credible risks" of addictive design features, disrupted sleep and worsening anxiety were enough to justify swift, precautionary action.
The admission came in the government's defence against a legal challenge brought by Reddit, one of two cases against the policy due to be heard together before the end of 2026. As families and young users adjust to a landscape of restricted accounts, many have also been exploring workarounds to maintain access to connected entertainment platforms; guides such as how to use a VPN with an Xbox have circulated widely as households try to manage device-level access and regional restrictions during the transition. The debate echoes a wider pattern seen in other jurisdictions, where age-verification and content rules have prompted users to seek technical routes around them, raising separate questions about enforcement and digital literacy.
A Policy Built on Precaution, Not Proof
At the heart of the government's defence is a deliberately framed distinction between proof and risk. Officials argue that "uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people," a position that mirrors precautionary approaches used in public health and environmental regulation, where governments act on plausible harm before definitive causal studies exist. Reddit's lawyers reject this framing, telling the court there is "no scientific consensus about whether there is a causal link between social media use and particular harms," and arguing the ban burdens the implied freedom of political communication while leaving loopholes unaddressed - including platforms excluded from the restriction and design features still accessible without a registered account.
Duty of Care as a Parallel Track
Perhaps the most revealing part of the government's submission is its argument that a proposed digital duty of care law would, if properly applied, produce much the same outcome as the outright ban. That framework would let users opt out of algorithmic feeds and other engagement-driving features rather than losing access entirely. The government says enforcing such opt-outs for children would effectively require platforms to strip away the very features the ban targets - suggesting the duty of care is not an alternative to prohibition but a different legal path toward an almost identical result.
Enforcement Numbers and Industry Pushback
The government points to tangible compliance activity as evidence the ban is working, citing roughly five million account removals in December last year and tens of thousands of suspensions by Reddit alone between December and March. Regulators have since strengthened the eSafety commissioner's powers and nearly doubled maximum penalties to approach $100m for non-compliance. Industry groups are not backing down: NetChoice, representing major platforms including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, X and YouTube, is seeking standing in the case alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation, setting up a prolonged legal contest over how far governments can go in regulating platform design before harm is scientifically settled.