The teens taking Australia to court over its social-media ban

This month, a legal challenge brought by two 15-year-olds has put Australia’s under-16 social-media ban under intense scrutiny. The case has catapulted what was largely a policy debate into something personal – a question of teenage voice, rights, identity and the role of the state in regulating childhood online.

For these teens, social media represents more than entertainment. It’s how they stay connected with friends, express themselves, explore interests, and build communities. Their lawsuit argues that a blanket age ban – applied uniformly to all under-16s – fails to reflect the real lives and needs of young people in a digital age.

What’s the case?

The new law, passed by the federal government in late 2024, prohibits children under 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms. From 10 December 2025, platforms will be required to block or delete accounts of users under that age.  

The plaintiffs – two 15-year-olds from Sydney – are challenging the law in what’s become a landmark court case. They argue the ban infringes on their rights to communicate, express themselves and participate in online life. For many teens, they say, their digital presence isn’t optional: it’s how they connect with friends, communities, hobby groups, creative outlets, and in some cases vital support networks. Their challenge spotlights a deeper issue: is it right to treat every under-16 the same, regardless of maturity, circumstances or need? And does a blanket ban risk doing more harm than good?

Why the ban was introduced – the arguments for regulation

Fears about mental health, safety and online harms

Supporters of the law say social media can pose serious risks for adolescents – particularly younger teens. Research has linked heavy or problematic use of social media with increased symptoms of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and other mental health challenges among teenagers.  

There are also concerns about cyberbullying, social comparison, exposure to harmful content, grooming or exploitation – issues many parents, educators and policymakers say warrant strong protection.  In the government’s view, a social-media age limit is a protective measure – a way to shield younger adolescents until they are more emotionally and cognitively mature, and better able to navigate the complexities of online life.  

A precautionary policy amid uncertainty

Importantly, while there’s a growing body of research showing associations between social-media use and mental health challenges, causation is harder to establish. Experts note that many factors – social inequality, offline stressors, family dynamics, economic pressures – also influence young people’s wellbeing.  

Some studies suggest social media may offer benefits – especially for those who rely on it for friendship, support, identity expression, or community (for example, LGBTQ+ youth, or adolescents who are in isolating circumstances).  Given the complexity, some psychologists say we don’t yet have robust evidence that proves social media is universally unsafe for all under-16s.  

What studies so far tell us (and don’t)

Mixed findings characterise current research on social media and adolescent wellbeing:

• Some systematic reviews find statistically significant associations between heavy social-media use and increased rates of depression, anxiety, stress or self-harm in teenagers.  

• Others conclude the associations are weak, inconsistent or heavily dependent on individual factors – how, when and why social media is used, rather than just ‘how much.’  

• Many experts highlight the importance of context: social-media use that builds community, supports identity expression, or gives a voice to marginalised youth can have protective benefits.  

• Because long-term, large-scale studies remain rare, most evidence so far speaks to correlation rather than causation.  

Recognising this uncertainty, researchers at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI) and Deakin University have launched a national study ‘Connected Minds‘ to track what happens to teens’ mental health, screen-time and social connections – before and after the Australian ban takes effect.  As MCRI’s Professor Susan Sawyer points out this is ‘a major social experiment’ and one whose results could shape digital-policy worldwide.  

What the court challenge reveals: the human side of regulation

The lawsuit brought by the two Sydney teenagers raises an important question: can digital-safety policies be flexible and rights-aware – rather than blunt instruments?

Their particular case draws attention to some issues rarely addressed in the legislative debates:

• Many young people rely on social media for identity formation, friendship and belonging – not just distraction. For some, offline spaces offer little support or opportunity.

• A one-size-fits-all age cut-off potentially ignores individual maturity, family context, mental health needs and social situation.

• Blanket bans risk driving use underground: teens may resort to fake accounts, unregulated platforms, or secret use – potentially heightening risk rather than reducing it.

• The ban may deprive already marginalised or vulnerable youth of online support and community precisely when they need it most.

The two teens suing the Australian government over the ban remind us that policy doesn’t just regulate technology – it shapes young people’s lives.

What’s at stake – for a generation, for policy and for society

The outcome of the court case is important – but perhaps more so could be its ripple effects. If the social media ban is overturned or modified in Australia it could lead to:

• Age-aware digital regulations that recognise individual maturity rather than dates of birth

• Investment in safer online environments: better age verification, moderation, education and support – rather than blanket exclusion

If the ban stands, though, and if the results are found to be positive (deceasing mental health issues for example) it could lead the way for governments elsewhere to prioritise youth protection over issues of online participation or rights of connection.

It’s clear that social media can indeed be harmful the evidence is mounting that overuse, certain patterns of engagement or unsafe content can damage mental health. But limiting access for everyone under 16 – regardless of who they are, how they use social media or what support they have – might be throwing out nuance, agency and community along with risk. We will have to wait to see the results of the ban down under to be able to make a more informed judgement.

As the world watches Australia’s first social media ban, this court case could eventually do more than decide one law in one country. It could mark the start of a deeper conversation about how we build digital childhoods that are safe – and human.