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
-
Are email trackers admissible as evidence?
The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.
-
Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?
The ruling of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 has opened the door for artificial intelligence-created inventions to be eligible for patent protection. Learn more about the implications of this groundbreaking decision.
-
The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview
The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.
-
Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code
The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.
-
Kogan fined $310k for Spam Act breaches
Kogan Australia Pty Ltd has been issued a hefty penalty and an enforceable undertaking for not complying with the Spam Act 2003 (Cth). Find out what this means for your business and what the consequences are for failing to comply.
-
Warning – Facebook trolls ordered to pay $150k damages
An online defamation case has resulted in two trolls being ordered to pay a hefty sum in damages. Learn more about the case and the potential consequences of making false claims online.
-
My client poached my software developers – what can I do?
This article examines how professional service businesses can protect their investment in employees from clients poaching them. It looks at potential clauses such as client agreements, non-solicitation of employees, restraints of trade, confidential information, copyright and more.
-
Emojis used online can be defamatory – watch out!
This Australian Court case is the first to consider whether emojis can be defamatory. Find out what the Court concluded about this novel legal question.
-
Patent granted for software tracking user actions
A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.
