Children Launch High Court Challenge On Grounds That Government Cannot Just Come In And Take Someone's Profile

ERROL PARKER | Editor-at-large | Contact

A group of children have commenced proceedings in the High Court of Australia, arguing that the Commonwealth’s upcoming ban on social media use for under-16s amounts to a compulsory acquisition of their online profiles, a prima facie breach of Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs say the legislation attempts to resume their digital property without just terms, a move they claim any reasonable observer would identify as res ipsa loquitur.

The special case was filed under the Court's original jurisdiction, with the young applicants contending that their accounts, posts, messages and accumulated digital presence constitute a proprietary interest. Their written submissions assert that the ban extinguishes this interest and reassigns control to the executive, which they say amounts to an acquisition in both the strict constitutional sense and the more casual "you cannot just come in and take someone’s stuff" sense popularised by suburban legal theorists in the late 1990s.

Counsel for the children argues that the ban confers a material benefit on the Commonwealth in the form of regulatory control and data certainty, triggering the established test for acquisition.

The applicants also raise proportionality, alleging the law burdens political communication in a manner inconsistent with the implied freedom, although insiders concede this limb appears to have been included largely because it is now contractually required in all constitutional challenges.

The Commonwealth describes the submissions as "Italian brainrot", a term that in public law generally means "unlikely to succeed unless the bench is serving cunt". Its response denies that a proprietary interest exists in any meaningful sense and argues that even if an acquisition could be identified, it would be incidental to a valid legislative purpose. The reply notes that the Constitution does not protect a right to maintain a Snapchat streak, regardless of how culturally significant the plaintiffs claim it to be. But that's up for interpretation in the coming months.

The matter has been listed for a full bench hearing in early 2026. Legal observers expect the Court to revisit principles from JT International, Wurridjal and other acquisition authorities, although some clerks privately fear the plaintiffs may attempt to rely on the vibe, which has historically attracted mixed reception at the apex legal level.

The Court told The Advocate they will release a timetable for submissions shortly.

More to come.