X argues it did not exist when eSafety served notice over child sexual abuse
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: X's lawsuit against the online safety regulator over a transparency notice issued to Twitter regarding child sexual abuse material has raised the question of whether the notice can apply to X, when it did not exist at the time of the notice.
The context: eSafety issued the notice to X when it was 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 has prompted a separate civil lawsuit from eSafety against the company.
What they said: Barrister Brett Walker SC, who is appearing before Federal Court of Australia Judge Michael Wheelahan on behalf of X, referred to law in the US state of Nevada, which, X argues, shows that Twitter "ceased to exist".
While Walker conceded that "logically" X became the service provider when Twitter was rebranded, it did not exist at the time the notice was issued and Australian online safety law doesn't account for "the cessation of existence of the person to whom [the notice] is directed" or for that notice to apply after an entity has legally changed.
The case continues.
The source: Federal Court of Australia
