Summary
- Australia launched civil penalty proceedings against Telegram over alleged failures to remove terrorist content despite repeated user reports.
- Regulators allege Telegram left extremist videos online while failing to remove related accounts, groups, or channels or notify complainants.
- Separate legal actions against founder Pavel Durov add international pressure as Australia pursues court enforcement over moderation practices.
Australia’s online safety regulator has launched civil penalty proceedings against Telegram, alleging the messaging platform failed to detect and remove terrorist content despite repeated reports from Australian users. The case, filed in the Federal Court, accuses Telegram of breaching obligations under the country’s Online Safety Act by allowing unlawful material to remain publicly accessible even after receiving notifications.
According to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the proceedings follow a year-long investigation into Telegram’s handling of extremist content. Regulators argue the platform failed to act within a reasonable timeframe despite receiving reports from Australian users about prohibited material.
Authorities allege some flagged videos remained accessible for up to three weeks after users reported them. The complaint also states Telegram failed to detect widely known terrorist material, including footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack and the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting. Regulators claim those videos remained available for nearly three months before removal.
Besides the content itself, eSafety alleges Telegram failed to remove related accounts, groups, and channels that distributed extremist material. The regulator also claims the platform lacked comprehensive terms prohibiting terrorist content across all services. Additionally, officials allege Telegram failed to inform complainants about the outcomes of their reports.
If the Federal Court rules against Telegram, the company could face civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million under Australia’s online safety framework.
Also Read: Binance.US Plans CFTC License Bid to Launch Regulated Prediction Market Platform
Regulator cites growing online radicalization risks
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant described the case as involving material linked to some of the world’s most notorious extremist attacks. She stated the disputed content remained available long after Telegram had been placed on notice through reports submitted by Australian users.
Moreover, Inman Grant connected the enforcement action to Australia‘s evolving security environment. She referenced the aftermath of the Bondi terror attack and Australia’s terrorism threat level, which remains classified as probable.
Additionally, she pointed to comments from ASIO Director General Mike Burgess, who has warned that online radicalization increasingly features in terrorism investigations. Burgess noted that strangers operating through digital platforms often influence vulnerable individuals with extremist material.
Telegram reports more than one billion users worldwide, while Australia’s eSafety Commissioner estimates Australians visit the platform about 1.5 million times each month. The service supports groups of up to 200,000 members and broadcast channels with no subscriber limit, giving content broad potential reach.
Australian case follows separate legal pressure on Pavel Durov
The Australian proceedings also coincide with growing legal pressure on Telegram founder Pavel Durov in multiple jurisdictions. Russian authorities recently charged Durov with aiding terrorist activity and placed him on an international wanted list over allegations that Telegram failed to remove content used to coordinate attacks inside Russia.
Durov, who holds French and Emirati citizenship, also faced arrest by French authorities in 2024 over allegations that Telegram failed to adequately combat criminal activity on its platform. However, Durov has denied wrongdoing throughout those investigations.
Conclusion
Australia’s case places Telegram’s content moderation practices under renewed judicial scrutiny. The court’s decision could influence how major messaging platforms meet online safety obligations when handling extremist material reported by users.
Also Read: Coinbase CEO urges Senate to pass CLARITY Act before lawmakers leave Washington
