Australia takes legal action against Telegram over pro-terror content

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant began legal action against Telegram in Melbourne over alleged failures to tackle pro-terror posts, turning a long-running regulatory dispute into a court case. The move puts a globally used messaging app, known for encrypted and semi-private channels, under pressure to show it can police extremist content without becoming an open forum for it.

The case grew out of a transparency notice issued on 18 March 2024 under the Online Safety Act. That notice asked Telegram to explain how it handled terrorist and violent extremist material, and eSafety said the company did not comply. The legal theory is straightforward: Australia is using its online-safety powers to force a platform to account for how harmful material spreads inside channels that are harder to monitor than public social feeds.

The material at issue was not abstract. The alleged offending content included videos of terrorist executions, mass shootings and footage tied to the Christchurch shootings, and some of it remained online for weeks after posting. Telegram had already come under Australian scrutiny before the lawsuit, including a nearly A$1 million penalty in February 2025 for delayed responses to questions about child abuse and terror content. Under the Online Safety Act’s services standard, non-compliance can carry a maximum penalty of A$54.6 million.

That financial exposure gives the case significance beyond Telegram. Australia is testing a model other democracies could use: start with a transparency notice, demand details on moderation, reporting and takedown practices, then escalate to court if a platform does not cooperate. The question is where legitimate public-safety enforcement ends and platform overreach begins, especially for services that market encryption and private communication as core features rather than bugs.

For Telegram, the fight is about more than one lawsuit. A ruling against the company could raise compliance costs, harden moderation standards and force changes in how encrypted or lightly moderated platforms are designed. For regulators in other countries, Australia’s case is a live example of how far a democracy can go when it decides that voluntary cooperation is not enough.