The Australian government has conceded to the high court that it implemented its under-16s social media ban before scientific consensus was established, but argues that 'credible risks' such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the measure.
Key facts
- The Australian government conceded there was no scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use when it implemented the ban.
- The government argues 'credible risks' including addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the under-16s social media ban.
- The concession came in the government's defence against a high court challenge to the ban.
- The government said its proposed digital duty of care legislation, allowing users to opt out of features like algorithms, would ultimately have the same effect as the ban.
The Australian government has acknowledged that it implemented its “world-leading” under-16s social media ban before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use, according to the Guardian.
In its defence against a high court challenge to the ban, the Commonwealth argued that the “credible risks” of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety are sufficient to justify the policy, even in the absence of settled science.
The government also pointed to its proposed digital duty of care legislation as part of its argument. That legislation would allow users to opt out of social media features such as algorithms.
According to the Guardian, the Commonwealth told the high court that the duty of care legislation would ultimately have the same effect as the ban if it were implemented.
The concession forms part of the government’s response to a legal challenge testing the validity of the ban, which has been described as world-leading in its scope.
The case places the balance between precautionary policymaking and the state of scientific evidence at the centre of the legal argument before the high court.
Why it matters
Australia's under-16s social media ban has drawn global attention as a potential model for other governments weighing restrictions on young people's online access. The government's admission that it acted without scientific consensus raises questions about how much evidence is needed to justify sweeping regulation, and the high court's ruling could shape how such policies are defended in future.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Australian government have scientific consensus before introducing the ban?
No. The government conceded to the high court that it implemented the under-16s social media ban before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use.
What justification did the government give for the ban?
The government argued that the 'credible risks' of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the policy.
What is the proposed digital duty of care legislation?
It is legislation that would allow users to opt out of social media features such as algorithms. The government argued it would ultimately have the same effect as the ban if implemented.