High Court reserves judgment on Reddit's challenge to Australia's under-16 social media ban

The High Court has reserved its decision on challenges to Australia's ban on under-16s holding social media accounts, after a two-day hearing before all seven justices ended in Canberra on Wednesday 4 November. This report draws on AAP, The Guardian, Reuters (in copy published by NBC News and The Straits Times) and the Sydney Morning Herald. ## Update: the government's case Government barrister Stephen Lloyd SC told the court the burden on the implied freedom of political communication was "indirect and modest in extent" and the law "viewpoint-neutral", Reuters reports; AAP quotes him as saying it was "indirect in nature and modest in extent". He said the ban targets design features such as endless scroll, likes, personalised recommendations and push notifications, The Guardian reports. A platform built for children without those features could be allowed, he said: "It would be a platform for kids that protects kids," AAP reports. In reply, Reddit's barrister Perry Herzfeld SC said the law allows no accounts at all for children, even restricted ones, and called that the "worst possible outcome", AAP reports. Reuters says the hearing was adjourned to a date to be set for judgment. Platforms face fines of up to $99 million for systemic non-compliance. ## Day one On Tuesday, Herzfeld argued the ban was rushed and "ill-thought-out, over-broad legislation", The Guardian reports, and called it "a very profound restriction on political debate in Australia", Reuters reports. Justice James Edelman questioned the claim that teenagers need social media to take part in political debate, the Herald reports. Two teenagers originally named as plaintiffs in the Digital Freedom Project case were removed over concerns about legal costs, AAP reports.