In December 2019, the Australian Government released a discussion paper on a proposed “Online Safety Act” (Proposal) for consultation. The Proposal is intended to combine and coordinate the existing framework into a single piece of legislation, and provide an update in accordance with the changes in the digital landscape. The Proposal will encourage businesses trading online to take more responsibility for material on their platforms.
Proposed changes
Some of the key proposals include:
- a set of basic online safety expectations for social media platforms, clearly stating community expectations, with associated reporting requirements;
- consistent take-down requirements for image-based abuse, cyber abuse, cyberbullying and seriously harmful online content, requiring online service providers to remove such material within 24 hours of receiving an eSafety Commissioner request; and
- a reformed online content scheme requiring the Australian technology industry to be proactive in addressing access to harmful online content. The scheme would also expand the eSafety Commissioner’s powers to address illegal and harmful content on websites hosted overseas.
Implications for businesses trading online
The Proposal states that, ‘as far as possible’, the scheme would apply ‘consistently to the different types of online service providers, not just large social media companies and ISPs’. By removing certain distinctions under existing online safety schemes, the Proposal would streamline coverage and ensure that content is treated consistently and is not subject to multiple layers of obligations.
This would mean that it is not only large, international companies such as Facebook or Google who will be impacted. Instead, the standards would apply to every business trading online, including small Australian businesses, particularly those websites which contain user-generated content (UGC). If implemented, the Proposal will require that these online service providers have the ability to take down content at the request of the eSafety Commissioner which has been reported as harmful. Online service providers will also have to introduce a notification mechanism on their websites where users can report such content.
Online service providers are also likely to face some challenges complying with the Proposal. For example, there will always be circumstances where a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not be appropriate, and different standards will be required for different types of providers. Further, the introduction of stronger, more general standards will mean businesses have to exercise a high level of care, so as to avoid being overcautious and wrongly removing potentially lawful content.
Takeaways
If the Proposal is implemented, online service providers will need to ensure they comply with the requirements for reporting, notification and take-down of harmful material including cyberbullying, harassment or abuse. This is especially so for websites containing UGC. Online service providers will be obliged to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms and for protecting their users.
Links and further References
Fact sheets
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Overview
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Ancillary service provider notice scheme
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Basic Online Safety Expectations
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Cyberbullying Scheme
Fact sheet – Online safety reform proposals – Harmful online content
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Image-based abuse scheme
Fact sheet – Online Safety Reform Proposals – Blocking terrorist material online
Legislation
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth)
Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019 (Cth)
Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 (Cth)
Further information for online businesses
If you need assistance with your business’ online content or if you operate a business which deals with user generate content please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about online businesses
-
Federal parliament passes cyber security laws
On 25 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed a suite of legislation, collectively referred to by the Australian Government as the Cyber Security Legislative Package 2024. The purported impetus for this legislation was a series of high-profile data breaches in 2022 and 2023.
-
Domain name disputes – a summary of the process
A domain name is a string of text that maps to an alphanumeric IP address, enabling users to access websites through client-side software.[1] Domains can be valuable business assets, and they frequently become the subject of disputes regarding the legitimacy of their registration among organisations with competing rights.
-
New OAIC guidance on Artificial Intelligence
On 21 October 2024, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published two (2) new guides on artificial intelligence (AI), purportedly in effort to make privacy compliance easier for business.
-
Artificial Intelligence defined – why no uniform approach?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is commonly thought of as the capacity of computer systems to execute tasks that usually need human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, and making decisions.[1] It covers a range of specialised fields, each focusing on different functions. For example, machine learning allows computers to learn from data, computer vision enables them to…
-
New USPTO guidelines on AI assisted inventions
In response to the Biden administration’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence on 30 October 2023, which outlined policies and principles to promote responsible Artificial Intelligence innovation and competition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued inventorship guidance for artificial intelligence (AI) assisted inventions. These…
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
-
The Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth)
On 30 November 2023, the Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth) and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 (Digital ID Bills) were introduced in the Australian Senate. Digital IDs are designed to provide individuals with a convenient way to verify their identity when completing certain online transactions and dealing with government and certain…
-
Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023 – exposure draft
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (Cth) (Misinformation Bill) was announced by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts (DITRDCA) in January 2023. The Misinformation Bill is aimed at restricting the flow of misinformation and disinformation by providing the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with increased…
-
What are adequate cyber security measures?
The adequacy of cyber security measures was considered in the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 496 (ASIC v Ri Advice Group). One of the issues raised was whether the respondent had adequate cyber security and cyber resilience in place across its network of financial advisors. …
