Australia’s first wave of social media ban litigation
Separate proceedings have been brought in the High Court in Australia by Reddit and the activist group, the Digital Freedom Project (the latter together with two “representative” young Australians). The court is managing those overlapping claims together, and in each case the claimant argues that the social media ban is invalid on the ground that it infringes the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
Reddit also advances an alternative case that it falls outside the scope of the regime on the basis that it is not an “age-restricted social media platform” within the meaning of the Australian legislation.
Both matters have now been referred to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia by way of a joint special case, with a two-day hearing listed for the November 2026 sittings.
What claims could emerge in England and Wales?
Could equivalent rights-based challenges succeed in England and Wales?
Unlike in Australia, Parliament’s sovereignty means that the English courts could not strike down or disapply primary legislation introducing a social media ban for under-16s, even if it were alleged to interfere with fundamental rights. As a result, claims equivalent to those brought by Reddit and the Digital Freedom Project could not lead to the invalidation of any statutory ban on social media use by under-16s in England and Wales.
A comparable route for a rights-based challenge in England and Wales would be an application for a declaration that any legislation is incompatible under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, most obviously by reference to Article 8 (right to respect private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights and/or Article 10 (freedom of expression). A claimant could also seek to pursue a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights.
That said, the practical effect of such a challenge would be likely limited. A declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity or enforceability of the legislation in question. The only consequence is to enable a government minister to consider whether to use the remedial order procedure under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under this provision, a government minister may, where they consider there are “compelling reasons” to do so, amend the legislation so as to remove the incompatibility with the Convention.
Where the boundary of “social media” may be tested
The UK Government has said it “plans to use the same model for a social media ban as Australia”. That is a significant signal, not least given the regulatory divergence we have analysed between the UK, France and Australia on how to manage children’s access to social media. Against that backdrop, Reddit’s alternative claim in Australia is of particular interest. In arguing that it is not a social media provider, Reddit raises, in substance, a question of interpreting the definition of a social media provider under the Australian legislation. Following the passage of legislation here, it is likely that the English Court will be asked to grapple with the same question.
For platforms operating at the margins of any statutory definition, that question is likely to be especially important. Businesses which do not regard themselves as social media providers, but whose services include features resembling those of social media platforms, will be watching closely to see how the Australian courts approach the distinction between services that fall within scope and those that do not. The case may offer a useful preview of the interpretative issues, and associated litigation risk, that a UK regime could generate.
Enforcement action as a trigger for further claims
Enforcement action under any future social media ban by the UK regulator, Ofcom, is likely to generate litigation on more than one front. This is already playing out in Australia. In March 2026, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner flagged five social media platforms for compliance issues and warned it is investigating potential non-compliance. In June, the Australian Government announced it would strengthen the regulator’s information-gathering powers and double the maximum penalty for breaches of the social media minimum age law to AUD $99 million. Regulatory decisions taken against social media providers could themselves be challenged with providers bringing judicial review proceedings where there is scope to argue that Ofcom has exceeded or in some way abused its powers under the legislation.
There is also the potential for follow-on private litigation. In recent years, tech firms have faced a growing number of high-value group and class actions in the UK. If Ofcom were to make adverse findings against a provider under any new regime, those findings could be relied on by consumer groups as the basis for damages claims on behalf of affected consumers. Any such claims would be separate from, and additional to, any financial penalty or other enforcement measure imposed by Ofcom.
Australia’s example points to disputes on multiple fronts
It is sometimes said that litigation follows real life. However, Australia’s experience with the Reddit and Digital Freedom Project claims suggests that social media firms and activist groups may look to test the scope of any legislation in England and Wales as soon as it is enacted through the courts, as well as to challenge subsequent enforcement action by way of judicial review.
At the same time, and as part of a now well-established trend in the UK, consumer rights groups and claimant law firms will likely be ‘waiting in the wings’ to bookbuild and bring class actions that follow-on from any findings and fines Ofcom issue following the ban coming into force. In that sense, litigation may also follow real life, and recent experience in the UK indicates that tech firms should be alert to the prospect of litigation flowing from enforcement action.
