The facts
The High Court's case page identifies the constitutional question as whether the Online Safety Act's under-16 account restrictions impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication and whether the plaintiffs have standing. [1]
AP reported that the Full Court began hearing challenges brought by Digital Freedom Project and Reddit on 3 November; the two-day hearing is scheduled to end Wednesday. [2]
ABC reported that the Commonwealth argues the rules are justified by child-safety aims, while plaintiffs say the restrictions burden young people's political communication. It said nearly five million social-media accounts had been blocked since the law took effect. [3]
The proceedings concern the law's validity and scope; the High Court has not issued a decision. [1][2][3]
Still unconfirmed
- The outcome, timing of judgment and whether any part of the law will be invalidated or narrowed remain unknown.
Sources
References support the numbered facts above. Source checks: 3 Nov 2026, 07:31 UTC.
- Case No. S163/2025: The Digital Freedom Project Incorporated & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
High Court of Australia · Primary source · 3 Nov 2026
Opened official case page and docket listing hearings on 3 and 4 November; it sets out the constitutional issue.
- Australia's highest court hears challenges to social media ban for children
The Associated Press · Reporting · 3 Nov 2026
Opened report confirming the hearing began, describing the two challenges and noting no result.
- High Court to consider whether under-16s social media ban is unconstitutional
ABC News Australia · Reporting · 3 Nov 2026
Opened local court report setting out plaintiffs' arguments, Commonwealth's position and that hearings continue Tuesday and Wednesday.