The Federal Court has rejected an appeal made by X Corp against a notice the tech company was given by the office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanding an explanation about child abuse material shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.
Three federal judges on Thursday unanimously rejected X’s appeal against a federal court decision made in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to the notice, which demanded details on how the Elon Musk-owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material.
X fined over gaps in child abuse prevention
The tech company was also ordered to pay the commissioner’s legal costs. Ms Inman Grant’s office describes itself as the world’s first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online.
The commissioner has also driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms, including X, from December.
The federal court case dates back to early 2023, when Ms Inman Grant asked some of the world’s largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms.
A reporting notice, issued under Australia’s Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter in February that year.
Twitter then merged with X the following month.
The world’s largest technology companies were asked to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. (ABC News: Mark Leonardi)
Arguments presented to the court by X Corp against complying with the order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor’s regulatory obligations in Australia.
Ms Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed the ruling on Thursday.
“This judgement confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company’s merger with another foreign company,” she said in a statement.
She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and “holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.”
“Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,”
she said.
A lawyer representing X, Justin Quill, said he had not yet read the appeals court judges’ reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal.
What we know about how the under-16s social media ban will work
The High Court only hears around 10 per cent of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X’s case.
X’s media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday.
In 2023, Ms Inman Grant’s office fined X $610,500 for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X’s response was considered incomplete or misleading.
X refused to pay, and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case.
AP