In a significant legal development, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has initiated a lawsuit against the popular encrypted messaging app Telegram. This action follows a comprehensive year-long investigation into the platform’s alleged failure to effectively detect and remove pro-terrorist and extremist content, including disturbing videos of executions and attacks.
Inman Grant announced the legal proceedings in Sydney, emphasizing the gravity of the case, which she described as concerning content linked to some of the most notorious acts of extremist violence in recent history. This lawsuit marks a pivotal moment as it is the first instance of the eSafety Commissioner enforcing online codes and standards regarding unlawful material, which were established a year ago. The outcome of this case will serve as a crucial test of her regulatory powers.
What is Telegram?
Telegram, launched in 2013 by brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov, was conceived as a response to increasing governmental control over communication, particularly in Russia. The platform has since grown to boast a global user base of one billion, with over 1.5 million monthly visits from Australia alone.
Positioned uniquely among major social media providers, Telegram’s limited moderation has made it a favored tool for dissidents, activists, and media organizations operating in authoritarian regimes. However, this same characteristic has rendered it a refuge for extremist groups. According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Telegram serves as an infrastructure that facilitates communication and recruitment for these groups.
Moreover, the platform has become a fertile ground for misinformation, enabling conspiracy theorists to amplify their narratives. While evidence suggests that exposure to such content may lead vulnerable individuals toward radicalization, further research is necessary to fully understand the extent of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, the responsibility of online platforms to manage harmful content is increasingly recognized as a fundamental duty.
The case against Telegram
The Online Safety Act 2021 outlines a series of obligations for platforms operating in Australia, including the proactive removal of harmful content, transparency in operations, and prompt responses to take-down requests. The eSafety Commissioner’s case against Telegram is framed as a response to rising concerns about terrorism, particularly following the attack at Bondi Beach in December, and a broader apprehension regarding the safety risks posed by online platforms.
The Statement of Claim filed by the Commissioner details multiple alleged violations of the Online Safety Act. These allegations include the failure to remove posts featuring footage from the Christchurch mosque attack in 2019 and the Buffalo mass shooting in May 2022, despite user reports. Additionally, the case highlights technical shortcomings, such as inadequate prohibitions on terrorism-related content within Telegram’s terms of service and the failure to eliminate accounts and channels promoting pro-terror material after becoming aware of them.
This should concern all of us. We’re talking about the most seriously harmful online material, and Australian law requires services across the online ecosystem to take responsibility for the role they play in allowing this material to be disseminated.
In response, a spokesperson for Telegram stated, “We reject these allegations and will contest them in court.” The platform claims to have blocked over 150,000 terrorist-related communities and removed more than 200 million pieces of terrorist content.
Tatan Syuflana/AP
Telegram could be banned
This legal challenge is not Telegram’s first brush with the law. In 2024, French authorities arrested Pavel Durov for his role in facilitating widespread criminal activities on the platform. The eSafety Commissioner’s recent success in securing A0,000 from Elon Musk’s X Corp for its lack of transparency regarding child protection measures may bolster her confidence in pursuing this case.
If successful, this lawsuit could further establish the Office of the eSafety Commissioner as a formidable regulatory body. The maximum penalty for breaching Australia’s online safety codes stands at A.6 million. Should the Federal Court rule against Telegram and the platform refuse to comply with any civil penalties, Inman Grant has indicated she may seek a court order to ban access to the app in Australia.
An increasing appetite to tackle big tech
This lawsuit represents just the beginning of what is expected to be a protracted legal process. Regardless of the outcome, the Commissioner’s decision to take action reflects Australia’s growing resolve to hold big tech platforms accountable, a sentiment echoed in various countries from Canada to Vietnam, which are developing their own social media regulations. The implications of this case could resonate far beyond Australia, potentially influencing global standards for online safety and accountability.
