Australia Hits Telegram with A$1M Fine Over Delayed Child Safety and Extremism Response

In the social media realm, rapidity defines the arena in which transparency cannot merely be a vague term but rather a legitimate right. Telegram, however, has chosen to take the scenic route in replying to Australian regulators about its safety measures. What was set to be a straight compliance issue has rather taken a five-month delay, and for its failure to respond on time to the inquiry into the prevention of child abuse material and violent extremist content, Australia’s online safety regulator imposed about A$1 million ($640,000) in fines on messaging platform Telegram.

The eSafety Commission, which imposed the fine on Monday, criticized Telegram for what it termed, in the delayed response, a blatant lack of transparency, which, according to Australian law, should have been timely. Now that Telegram is trying to appeal, this whole saga gives rise to an urgent question, Is online safety regulation something Big Tech can afford to put on snooze?

Scrutiny and Compliance Issues:

In March 2024, the eSafety Commission reached out to a host of social media platforms, including YouTube, X, Facebook, Telegram, and Reddit, inquiring into what they had done or should do to control the use of their platforms by extremists. Companies were asked to outline their strategies for countering Child Sexual Abuse Material and recruitment by extremist organizations through streaming features, algorithms, and recommendations. The response was timely from other platforms, while Telegram submitted only in October, five months after the deadline.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant stressed that transparency in regulatory compliance is very important. Grant said in a statement, “Timely transparency is not a voluntary requirement in Australia and this action reinforces the importance of all companies complying with Australian law. She described the delay as, Telegram’s delay in providing information obstructed eSafety from implementing its online safety measures”.

Telegram’s Response:

Telegram defended its position, stating that it responded fully to all inquiries, no issues left pending. The company said in an email statement, “The unfair and disproportionate penalty concerns only the response time frame, and we intend to appeal”. The company argued that the fine was unfair and disproportionate because it related only to timing and not to any failure to comply with safety requirements.

The scrutiny has been building on the platform globally, after the investigation by French authorities into its founder, Pavel Durov, in August 2024 on allegations concerning Telegram’s use in illicit activities. Durov, who is presently out on bail, denied all allegations.

Implications of Tech Regulation:

The case raises issues that reveal the prevailing climate demanding transparency and accountability of tech companies in the field of online safety. Grant asserted that extremist online materials are exponentially growing threats, thus demanding enhanced enforcement mechanisms that will hold tech companies accountable for their preventive actions regarding the exploitation of their platforms. Grant said, “If we want accountability from the tech industry we need much greater transparency. These powers give us a look under the hood at just how these platforms are dealing, or not dealing, with a range of serious and horrendous online harms which affect Australians.” The eSafety Commission stated that if Telegram does not comply with the order, it would then go to civil court to enforce it.

Concerns of Counter-Terrorism:

Australia’s intelligence agencies also raised alarms about threats from online extremism. As of December 2024, the report said one out of the five priority counter-terrorism cases in Australia had a youth component. Such findings also added to the urgency for the regulatory body to enforce stricter policies on digital platforms to stop radicalization and harmful content.

This isn’t merely a slap on the wrist for Telegram, rather this sends a signal to the tech industry that there are limits to regulatory patience. As scrutiny grows around the world about the role of digital platforms in promoting extremism and child safety issues, the need for accountability has become apparent. As regulatory scrutiny of digital platforms is gaining momentum on the global front, Telegram’s legal manoeuvrings could provide a precedent on how tech companies engage with regulators and manage compliance expectations going forward.

Read More: Grok 3’s Brief Censorship of Trump and Musk Sparks Controversy