X Wins Australian Court Battle Against eSafety’s Online Content Rules
Synopsis
Elon Musk's X has secured a Federal Court victory against Australia's eSafety Commissioner, with the judge ruling the platform does not have to comply with the Relevant Electronic Services Standard governing harmful online content.
X eSafety held that X is a social media service falling outside the scope of the Online Safety Act, and therefore not a relevant electronic service.
The Online Safety (Relevant Electronic Services, Class 1A and Class 1B Material) Industry Standard 2024 (RES Standard) is not imperative to X, said Justice Elizabeth Raper in her judgement dated 12 August 2026.
The X eSafety court decision followed the eSafety Commissioner’s challenge to X’s status as a social media service, arguing that it could fall under both categories (and therefore both obligations) per the Act, and that the matter required judicial direction.
Court Draws Line Between Service Categories
The X eSafety court decision concerns the definition of online services within the Online Safety Act.
The Federal Court ruled that the description of a social media service contained in sections 5 and 13 of the Act extends to X. The Court further stated that the statute does not permit a dual categorisation of X as both a social media service and a relevant electronic service for the same purpose.
The scope of application of the RES Standard is therefore limited to those matters specified in the Standard and continues to apply to the extent that remains in force in relation to the services to which it is applied. It sets out requirements for Class 1A and 1B material, including the most severe types of harmful content on line.
The X decision provides clarity to Australian and U.S.-based technology companies that operate services within Australia. It recognises that obligations attaching to these services will depend on their categorisation under the Online Safety Act.
X Remains Under Wider Online Safety Rules
The X eSafety court decision does not deal a death blow to the Government’s internet safety laws. By finding that X is a social media service, the Court has ruled that it must comply with the broad obligations attaching to that classification.
The decision comes days after two separate enforcement proceedings against X. In this latest development, the Federal Court ordered X Corp to pay a A$650,000 civil penalty for its failure to give effect to a reporting notice issued by the eSafety Commissioner under the Online Safety Act.
The notice, issued in February 2023, required X to report on its compliance with the Act in relation to harmful online content. This matter was determined by consent in the Federal Court.
The X eSafety court ruling therefore does not affect the company’s obligations under the Australian online safety laws.
Source: InformationAGE
Pooja Malik is a business journalist with over six years of experience covering startups, entrepreneurship, and emerging trends. She has previously worked with leading media platforms such as YourStory Media and BW BusinessWorld, where she reported on business, policy, and market developments. Currently, she serves as Editor at The Inspirepreneur Magazine, where she writes and edits stories across business, lifestyle, and travel, with a focus on clarity, accuracy, and reader relevance.
You Might Also Like
Pakistan Shuts Afghanistan Border Following Military Clashes
Trump nominates Erica Schwartz to lead CDC amid leadership reshuffle
