The Australian court upheld a record-breaking A$610,500 fine imposed on Elon Musk’s social media application, X (formerly Twitter), following a tiff with the Australian eSafety Commissioner over compliance with the latter’s investigation into child abuse material.
The court passed a decision on this following an appeal by X after the eSafety Commissioner served an order requiring the platform to produce detailed information about action taken in relation to child sexual exploitation material. X argued that since it was acquired by Musk in 2022 and rebranded, it was no longer legally obligated to fulfill any request by the Australian regulators as per the status it enjoyed at the time of acquisition as Twitter.
However, the Federal Court of Australia did not concur with the argument and said that X needs to comply with the Australian regulatory requirements regardless of the fact that corporate restructuring had taken place.
The ruling of the court has been termed to have favored the Australian government after coming out with praise words from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant who fears that a loss would set a very dangerous precedent. It would mean that foreign companies can skirt local oversight of their activities via mergers or restructurings—steps that would undermine internet safety measures.
X and the eSafety Commissioner have had previous run-ins. Early in the year, X had another legal row when the regulator ordered it to remove ‘offending’ content related to an incident in Australia. X resisted this, arguing that the call would give rise to worldwide censorship. In the current case, X has been made to account for not keeping up with the timely response on child protection practices. The issue has pegged Musk’s platform under sharp scrutiny both from Australia and the rest of the world.
The move reflects a globalisation of concern over social media companies’ duties to monitor and regulate noxious online content. Since his takeover of the company, Musk’s X has taken on a more laissez-faire approach to content moderation. The moves have alarmed regulatory authorities at every level concerning the platform’s position on adverse materials, child abuse content not least among them.
As much as X tries to appeal the fine issued, the Australian court ruling is an open invitation that regulatory agencies, such as the eSafety Commissioner in this case will continue holding firm on regulations directed at preventing exploitation of vulnerable users, especially children. Another consequence the company faces is not cooperating with the investigations as the eSafety Commissioner initiates civil proceedings against it. This event escalates the battle between Musk’s social media empire and the Australian government on matters of regulation.
It would have more far-reaching implications for the business operations of global technology companies operating in countries with strong regulatory frameworks. There is a likelihood that governments will become proactive in enforcing what has been termed online safety rules, which Musk’s X might face in other jurisdictions if it continues to challenge regulatory requests on such sensitive matters.
In the case, the focus lies in the tension between the groups of tech companies who prefer to run as unregulated as possible and the role of the governments in ensuring that their citizens are protected from harming content online. As X continues to go on this journey of dealing with these complex legal challenges, it is most likely that results are set to form the way the platform would carry out its regulatory compliance on matters of international impact like child safety.
