Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has launched an appeal against a landmark Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ruling that effectively prohibits the agency from using “informal” methods to request content removal from online platforms.
The controversial decision stems from multiple cases where the AAT determined that eSafety was circumventing proper legal processes by relying on hundreds of informal communications rather than issuing formal takedown notices under the Online Safety Act.
The tribunal’s judges rejected eSafety’s informal approach on three separate occasions, ruling that the government body cannot sidestep legal scrutiny and appeals processes by choosing informal channels over official legal notices. This practice had allowed eSafety to request content removal without providing affected parties the right to formal appeals that come with statutory takedown orders.
The AAT’s findings revealed that eSafety had been systematically using these informal communications as a preferred method for content removal requests, potentially affecting hundreds of cases. This approach raised significant concerns about due process and transparency in Australia’s online content regulation framework.
The ruling represents a significant challenge to eSafety’s operational methods and could force the agency to fundamentally change how it approaches content moderation requests. Under the Online Safety Act, formal takedown notices come with specific legal protections and appeal rights for content creators and platform users.
By pursuing informal channels, critics argued that eSafety was effectively operating outside the legal framework designed to balance online safety concerns with freedom of expression and due process rights. The tribunal’s decision reinforces the principle that government agencies must operate within established legal procedures, even when addressing urgent online safety issues.
The appeal by eSafety indicates the agency believes its informal approach serves important public safety functions and may argue that the tribunal’s decision hampers its ability to respond quickly to harmful online content. However, the consistent rejection of this method across three separate appeals suggests the tribunal views the practice as a fundamental breach of proper administrative procedure.
This legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between rapid content moderation needs and maintaining proper legal safeguards in Australia’s evolving online safety landscape. The outcome of eSafety’s appeal could set important precedents for how government agencies can interact with social media platforms and other online services regarding content removal requests.
