Australia’s continuing clash over online speech has deepened after the Federal Court ordered Telegram to define the limits of its lawsuit against eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant by November 7.
The directive followed complaints from the regulator that Telegram had widened its challenge beyond what it originally filed, introducing new arguments at a late stage.
The dispute centers on the controversial Online Safety Act 2021, which gives the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to demand information from online platforms about their handling of “harmful” content and to impose penalties for non-compliance.
Telegram is challenging both the Commissioner’s authority under that law and the A$957,780 ($622k) fine issued earlier this year after it allegedly missed a reporting deadline.
In March 2024, eSafety issued notices to six major technology companies, including Google, Meta, X, Reddit, WhatsApp, and Telegram.
The notices required detailed reports about how each company was combating material connected to “terror and violent extremism” and demanded responses within 49 days.
According to eSafety, Telegram failed to comply within that timeframe, leading to the fine on February 24, 2025.
Telegram has rejected both the fine and the regulator’s jurisdiction.
The company argues that it is not a “provider of social-media services” under the law and therefore cannot be bound by Section 56(2), which authorizes eSafety to compel cooperation from social media or electronic service providers.
Telegram also claims that it never received the March 2024 notice because it was sent to an incorrect address in Dubai and to unrelated email inboxes. The company maintains that it only learned of the request in late August 2024 and still provided responses in October “in circumstances where it was not compelled to do so.”
During a recent hearing, eSafety’s lawyer Philip Solomon said Telegram had suddenly expanded its case to challenge not only the legality of the reporting notice but also the fine itself. “
We want to know the case we have to meet. We want a fair opportunity to meet it,” Solomon told the court, urging clarity ahead of the next hearing.
Judge Christopher Horan agreed, instructing Telegram to confirm by November 7 which arguments it intends to pursue. Any grounds left out of the amended filing will be treated as withdrawn. The case is scheduled for a two-day hearing in December.
Telegram’s lawyer, David Klempfner, has criticized the “scope and volume of affidavit material” produced by eSafety, saying the regulator’s approach has complicated what should be a straightforward judicial review. Telegram is seeking to overturn the fine and recover its legal costs.
Beyond the procedural fight, the case raises larger questions about the reach of government control over digital communications.
Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, has become one of the most polarizing figures in the country’s digital policy world because of her strong support for far-reaching online regulation.
Her office has given itself extensive powers under the Online Safety Act, enabling it to demand reports from technology companies, order the removal or restriction of content, and impose significant fines for non-compliance.
While her supporters argue that these measures are essential to address online abuse and harmful material, others see them as an excessive extension of government authority into the realm of free expression.
By allowing a regulator to define what counts as “harmful content,” the law gives broad discretion that many believe could lead to the suppression of lawful speech simply because it is unpopular or politically inconvenient.
