Federal Court hears X's online safety appeal over child sexual abuse notice
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: Elon Musk's X Corp has again aired arguments it did not exist when the eSafety Commissioner issued a transparency notice to Twitter regarding child sexual abuse material.
As X didn't exist when the company was still known as Twitter, it shouldn't be liable for a notice issued to Twitter, its lawyers argued in a Full Federal Court appeal of the social media company's earlier court loss.
The context: eSafety issued the notice to X when it was still branded as Twitter in February 2023, raising questions about measures it has in place to deal with child sexual abuse. Twitter rebranded as X in July 2023.
Other tech platforms — Google, TikTok, Twitch and Discord — were also issued with notices at the time.
X's subsequent alleged failure to comply with the notice and the payment of a $610,500 fine prompted a separate civil lawsuit from eSafety against the company, which is ongoing.
Federal Court of Australia Judge Michael Wheelahan rejected X's argument in an October judgment, saying that the status of a foreign company extended beyond "mere existence" and included the liabilities attached to a company, which X acquired when Elon Musk acquired Twitter and subsequently renamed it.
What they said: In today's half-day appeal hearing, barrister Brett Walker SC said the question for the three-judge panel is whether the surviving entity after a takeover and rebranding, can be sued.
"That is the reason why we are here," he said.
"The nature of the main point does not have the effect of removing the entity that now provides the social media service from being required to provide reports, it is simply a piece of history that requires a new notice to be served on it," Walker said.
But eSafety barrister Stephen Lloyd hit back at this suggestion, saying "the logic of their position is we couldn't reissue a notice because they weren't the service provider then."
Lloyd said X had argued it is a wholly new company, owning the assets of a previous company, but not liable for the regulatory notice.
Judgment in the appeal is reserved.
