In Melbourne, Australia, an influential appeals court delivered a verdict on Thursday unfavorable to X Corp., a company owned by Elon Musk. The ruling was a refutation of the companyโs challenge against eSafety Commissionerโs demands for full disclosure on procedures combating the dissemination of child exploitation material on its platform.
The unanimous decision by three federal court judges maintained an earlier October ruling, emphasizing that X Corp. must comply with a directive from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The directive was issued regarding the sharing of child abuse content on X, a company registered in Texas.
Furthermore, the court mandated that X Corp. cover the legal expenses incurred by the commission. The eSafety office, steered by Inman Grant, prides itself on being the first governmental body globally dedicated to ensuring online safety.
A significant legislative milestone achieved under Inman Grantโs leadership includes laws set to take effect from December, which prohibit Australian children under 16 from accessing social media platforms such as X.
The legal proceedings commenced in early 2023, following Inman Grantโs initiative to hold major tech companies accountable for the presence of child abuse material on their digital platforms. Consequently, in February of that year, a formal notice as per Australiaโs Online Safety Act was dispatched to Twitter Inc., a company then based in Delaware.
Following this, Twitter underwent a merger with X within the same timeframe. X asserted that due to the merger, any prior obligations did not transfer and thus, it should not bear responsibility for complying with Inman Grantโs order.
Former employee of Twitter, Inman Grant, expressed satisfaction with the courtโs ruling. She stated, โThis judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign companyโs merger with another foreign company.โ
She emphasized that her office would persist in enforcing the Online Safety Act, ensuring that technology companies adhere to Australian laws, highlighting the necessity of transparency to hold such companies accountable.
Xโs legal representative, Justin Quill, indicated that he had yet to review the appeals courtโs detailed reasoning and thus could not speculate on a potential appeal to the High Court. The High Court is selective, hearing only a fraction of appeal requests, suggesting the current federal court ruling may be the final word on the matter.
The media office for X did not provide any remarks on the developments as inquiries went unanswered on Thursday.
In 2023, the eSafety office imposed a fine of 610,500 Australian dollars ($385,000) on X for not sufficiently clarifying its efforts to tackle child exploitation content effectively. X Corp. disputed the fine and has opted not to pay, leading to another federal court case, which is still ongoing.