According to TechSpot, Reddit has filed a lawsuit in Australia’s High Court against the Commonwealth of Australia and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. The legal challenge, filed last Friday, aims to overturn a new law that came into effect just last week, which requires platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Reddit itself to verify user ages and ban those under 16. Platforms that fail to comply face massive fines of up to AU$49.5 million, or about $33 million USD. Reddit, which counts Australia as its fourth-largest market, argues the law infringes on an implied constitutional freedom of political communication. The company’s core defense is that it shouldn’t even be included, as it claims it is not a social media platform but a “collection of public fora.”
Reddit’s awkward argument
So, Reddit’s main play here is a two-pronged attack. First, they’re making a high-minded constitutional argument about protecting political discourse for future voters. It’s a clever angle, honestly. But the second prong is where it gets… weird. Reddit is essentially telling an Australian court, “Your honor, we are not social media.” They’re insisting that because their platform is organized by topic (subreddits) and isn’t solely for direct “social interaction” between specific users, it doesn’t count. They acknowledge enabling “online interaction” but draw a line at “social interaction.” Come on. Have they *been* on Reddit? The entire point is social interaction, even if it’s anonymous and topic-based. Threads, comments, upvotes, chats—it’s all social. This feels like a semantic loophole they’re desperately trying to squeeze through, and I’d be shocked if the court buys it. The government’s own eSafety Commission flowchart pretty clearly seems to classify them as a social platform.
The bigger picture and hypocrisy
Here’s the thing: Australia‘s law is part of a massive, global push to regulate kids’ online safety, and it’s incredibly messy. The government published a list of exempt platforms, and it’s a bizarre mix. Discord and WhatsApp—two of the most direct messaging-heavy services out there—are exempt. But Reddit and YouTube are not. Where’s the consistency? The government’s response has been equally blunt. Health Minister Mark Butler compared Reddit’s lawsuit to Big Tobacco fighting regulation, saying it’s about protecting profits, not free expression. Ouch. That’s a brutal framing, and it signals the government is ready for a fight. Reddit, which just went public, is now in the awkward position of fighting a major market over a child safety law. That’s not a great look for a “collection of public fora,” is it?
Why this probably fails
Look, I think Reddit’s constitutional argument might get a hearing, but the “we’re not social media” claim is almost certainly dead on arrival. The practical reality is that lawmakers and regulators see these large, user-generated content platforms as a bundle. The technical definitions they craft will inevitably encompass them. And let’s be real: Reddit’s primary motive here is almost certainly commercial. Australia is a top-five market for them. Cutting off an entire generation of future users is a direct threat to their growth and engagement metrics. This lawsuit is a Hail Mary to avoid that outcome. But in the court of public opinion, arguing about definitions while the core concern is child welfare is a very tough sell. Basically, they’re trying to win on a technicality, and the world is watching to see if it works.
