“Had X Corp’s argument been accepted by the Court, it could have set the concerning precedent that a foreign company’s merger with another foreign company might enable it to avoid regulatory obligations in Australia,” Inman Grant warned.
X has been on thin ice with Inman Grant since it responded to the initial 30-question inquiry into how the platform is monitoring and removing CSAM by leaving many questions blank. X then seemingly stalled, delaying responding to subsequent inquiries asking the company to either fill in the blanks or explain why it was unable to answer the questions.
So, when X refused to pay the non-compliance fine last October, Inman Grant seemingly had enough. She soon commenced an additional proceeding in December, this time “seeking the imposition of civil penalties,” Wheelahan noted. And that can now move forward, as “the further progress of the civil penalty proceeding” has been awaiting the outcome of Wheelahan’s ruling this week, the judge said.
There’s little chance that eSafety will drop the civil proceeding. In the press release, eSafety confirmed that the commission “takes compliance with transparency notices seriously and looks forward to ensuring alleged non-compliance is adequately addressed.”
According to an Australian government review of the Online Safety Act, X could owe civil penalties up to approximately $530,000 for failing to comply with the reporting notice, potentially more than doubling its costs after fighting the initial fine.
X might have been better off sharing more information on how it’s fighting CSAM. Inman Grant reiterated Friday that eSafety is not just targeting X, but all Big Tech platforms failing to be transparent about steps taken to respond to CSAM.
“eSafety remains committed to exercising provisions available under the Online Safety Act to hold all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia and prioritize the safety and wellbeing of all Australians,” Inman Grant said.
