In its formal appeal to Australia’s High Court, Reddit contends that the law is “invalid on the basis of the implied freedom of political communication,” suggesting that it imposes undue restrictions on political discourse. This legal maneuver underscores Reddit’s commitment to maintaining a space for open communication on political matters.

Implemented on Wednesday, this ban by Canberra targets ten major online services, including prominent platforms like Alphabet’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, and Elon Musk’s X. While these platforms have agreed to adhere to the policy, their levels of compliance vary.

Requests for comment directed to Australia’s Prime Minister’s office, the Attorney-General’s Department, and other social media companies have yet to receive responses.

The legislation mandates that these platforms employ “reasonable steps” to restrict underage users. Age verification might entail various methods, such as analyzing online activity, estimating age through selfies, or verifying identity through uploaded IDs or linked bank details.

Under the law, the targeted platforms will have to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage access, using age–verification methods such as inference from online activity, facial estimation via selfies, uploaded IDs, or linked bank details.

Reddit’s application to the courts seeks to either declare the law invalid or exclude the platform from the provisions of the law.

In a statement to CNBC, Reddit said that while it agrees with the importance of protecting persons under 16, the law could isolate teens “from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions).”

It also said in its application that the law “burdens political communication,” saying “the political views of children inform the electoral choices of many current electors, including their parents and their teachers, as well as others interested in the views of those soon to reach the age of maturity.”

The platform also argued that it should not be subject to the law, saying it operates more as a forum for adults facilitating “knowledge sharing” between users than as a traditional social network, saying that it does not import contact lists or address books.

“Reddit is significantly different from other sites that allow for users to become “friends” with one another, or to post photos about themselves, or to organise events,” the platform said in its application.

Reddit further said in its court filing that most content on its platform is accessible without an account, and pointed out a person under the age of 16 “can be more easily protected from online harm if they have an account, being the very thing that is prohibited.”

“That is because the account can be subject to settings that limit their access to particular kinds of content that may be harmful to them,” it adds.

Despite its objections, Reddit said that the challenge was not an attempt to avoid complying with the law, nor was it an effort to retain young users for business reasons.

“There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans,” the platform said.

— CNBC’s Dylan Butts and Stephen Desaulniers contributed to this story.