Australia’s online watchdog is taking messaging app Telegram to court over ‘pro-terrorist’ posts

Popular encrypted messaging app Telegram failed to detect and remove pro-terrorist and extremist material, including videos of executions and attacks, a new lawsuit launched by Australia’s online watchdog alleges.

The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, announced in Sydney on Thursday morning she was taking legal action against Telegram in the Federal Court, following a year-long investigation.

“This case concerns content linked to some of the most notorious acts of known extremist violence in recent history,” she said.

This is the first time the eSafety Commissioner has legally enforced online codes and standards relating to unlawful material, which came into effect a year ago. It will test her powers.

What is Telegram?

Launched in 2013, Telegram was originally developed by brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov as a response to the encroaching control imposed by the Russian government. It promised a more secure channel for communication.

It now boasts a billion users globally. There are upwards of 1.5 million monthly visits from Australia.

Telegram occupies a distinctive niche among the major social media providers. Its limited moderation makes it a prized resource for communication by dissidents and activists, as well as media organisations in authoritarian nations.

For the same reason, it’s also a haven for extremist groups. According to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Telegram is a kind of infrastructure that allows these groups not only to communicate but also to expand their numbers.

Telegram is also a common source and breeding ground for misinformation and its biggest distributors. It enables conspiracy theorists to bolster their support and extend their theories.

Evidence suggests that vulnerable groups seeing this content are pushed towards radicalised behaviours. However, more research is required to determine the extent of this effect.

Nevertheless, processes for keeping risky or simply undesirable content away from users is becoming a core responsibility of platforms.

The case against Telegram

The Online Safety Act 2021 describes a range of responsibilities that platforms must meet when operating in Australia. These include the active removal of potentially harmful content, transparency about their operations, and timely responses to take-down requests.

The eSafety Commissioner’s case against Telegram is positioned as a response to growing concerns around terrorism arising from the attack at Bondi Beach in December, as well as an increasing sense that platforms present risks for our safety and security.

The commissioner’s Statement of Claim doesn’t reflect a single failure. Rather, it details numerous alleged violations of the Online Safety Act.

Some of these allegations relate to specific events. These include not removing posts showing the shooter’s footage of the Christchurch mosque attack in 2019, as well as the Buffalo mass shooting in New York in May 2022, even after reports from users.

Other allegations relate to more technical issues. For example, insufficiently prohibiting terrorism-related content through the service’s terms of service, and failing to remove relevant accounts, channels and groups after becoming aware of pro-terror material to reduce the risk of further breaches.

The commissioner said:

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.

A spokesperson for Telegram told The Conversation: “We reject these allegations and will contest them in court.”

The platform says it has blocked more than 150,000 terrorist-related communities and has removed more than 200 million pieces of terrorist content.

Telegram could be banned

This isn’t the first time Telegram has been in legal trouble.

In 2024, French authorities arrested Pavel Durov for facilitating the widespread crimes committed on his messaging platform.

The eSafety Commissioner’s confidence is likely running high after her recent success getting Elon Musk’s X Corp to pay A$750,000 for its reluctance to provide information on its child protection approaches.

If this current case is similarly successful, it will further demonstrate the Office of the eSafety Commissioner does have some teeth.

The maximum penalty for breaching Australia’s online safety codes and standards is A$54.6 million.

If the Federal Court rules against Telegram and it refuses to pay any civil penalty issued, Inman Grant has said she will explore the possibility of asking the court to ban access to the app in Australia.

An increasing appetite to tackle big tech

This is only the beginning of what is likely to be a lengthy process.

Whether the Commissioner succeeds or not, her decision to pursue this case reflects Australia’s increasing appetite to tackle big tech platforms that had previously proven resistant to accountability.

With countries from Canada to Vietnam now developing their own versions of Australia’s social media age restrictions, it is easy to see how this work can result in follow-on impacts across the globe.

Timothy Koskie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.