Over the past two years, Australia has intensified online safety regulation. Consequently, global platforms now face heightened scrutiny under the Online Safety Act. Our technology and cyber lawyers are among practitioners active in the privacy and cybersecurity litigation relating to online safety in Australia.
Notably, cases involving companies such as Telegram highlight regulators’ reach and the legal complexity for international technology companies operating locally.
LGM Advisors’ Role
During this period, LGM Advisors has advised on and litigated key online safety matters. Specifically, the firm has worked on:
- Telegram’s challenge to the eSafety penalty of $1m
- Related transparency notice disputes
LGM Advisors’ cyber lawyers remain active in privacy and cybersecurity litigation across Australia.
Core Services
The firm’s work includes:
- Regulatory advisory
- Litigation strategy
- Representation and consultation in enforcement matters
The below is a summary of several key recent cases of note in online safety litigation in Australia:
Key Case: X Corp v eSafety Commissioner
Background
The Court currently has this matter listed for hearing on 28–29 May 2026.
X Corp commenced proceedings in May 2025 in the Federal Court of Australia. The case challenges aspects of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).
In particular, X disputes the application of the Relevant Electronic Services (RES) Standard to its platform.
Importantly, the RES Standard requires platforms to reduce access to harmful online content.
X Corp’s Arguments
X argues the RES Standard should not apply to its services. Alternatively, it seeks a declaration that the Standard is invalid or inapplicable.
Meanwhile, X requested an undertaking to pause enforcement pending the Court’s decision. However, the Commissioner refused.
Key Legal Issues
The case raises several critical questions:
- Does the RES Standard apply to X’s services?
- Should the Commissioner’s approach undergo judicial review?
- Should enforcement pause pending final determination?
Status and Significance
The decision will shape how social media platforms fall within Australia’s online safety regime. Furthermore, it will likely influence global compliance strategies for major tech companies.
Notable Decision: Baumgarten v eSafety Commissioner
Background
In May 2024, Celine Gillian Baumgarten posted criticism on X about a Victorian primary school activity. Subsequently, a complaint reached the eSafety Commissioner.
Although the Commissioner found the content potentially offensive, it did not meet the statutory threshold for cyber-abuse.
Informal Action
Instead of issuing a removal notice, the Commissioner sent a “complaint alert” to X. As a result, X geo-blocked the post in Australia.
Tribunal Review
Ms Baumgarten challenged the action in the Administrative Review Tribunal. She argued the alert effectively operated as a takedown decision.
The Tribunal agreed and asserted jurisdiction. Therefore, it set aside the decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Federal Court Appeal
The eSafety Commissioner appealed to the Full Federal Court. However, on 18 February 2026, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Crucially, the Court confirmed:
- Informal actions can still attract review
- Agencies cannot avoid oversight through informal characterisation
Significance of Baumgarten
This decision clarifies that “complaint alerts” may trigger merits review when they lead to content restriction.
Accordingly, the ruling limits the Commissioner’s reliance on informal mechanisms to achieve moderation outcomes without statutory safeguards.
LGM Advisors has technology and cyber lawyers who provide advice and representation on matters relating to Online Safety and enforcement in Australia. In the event of any query, please do not hesitate to contact our office on contact@lgmadvisors.com.au.
