Australia's eSafety Commissioner has initiated civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court, alleging the messaging platform failed to remove terrorism-linked material after receiving user reports. The lawsuit follows a year-long investigation and could result in penalties of up to AU$54.6 million if the court confirms the breaches. The action represents one of the most aggressive enforcement efforts by Australia, which established the eSafety Commissioner in 2015 as the world's first government agency dedicated to online safety and has since positioned itself at the forefront of global platform regulation.

Alleged Safety Failures Detailed

According to the filing, users reported execution videos and other unlawful content to Telegram between July and October 2025. The regulator alleges that the material remained online for up to three weeks, and that Telegram failed to promptly remove it or suspend the accounts responsible for distributing it.

The case also challenges Telegram's broader controls over extremist channels, groups, and public broadcasts. Australia contends that after identifying terrorism-linked material, the platform did not take adequate steps to reduce repeat violations. Related accounts allegedly remained active, enabling users to continue accessing and sharing similar content.

The regulator specifically cited footage from the Christchurch mosque attack and the Buffalo supermarket shooting. According to the filing, users uploaded known attack videos months before Telegram removed them. Australia argues that stronger detection systems should have identified and blocked such material far earlier. The Christchurch footage, live-streamed on Facebook in 2019 and circulated across platforms including Telegram, was a catalyst for the international Christchurch Call initiative, under which governments and tech companies pledged to eliminate terrorist content online—a commitment the filing implicitly suggests remains unfulfilled on Telegram's services.

Legal Framework and Court Proceedings

Under Australia's Online Safety Act 2021, online services are required to prevent, detect, disrupt, and deter serious unlawful content, including terrorism material, child abuse content, extreme violence, and serious criminal activity.

The eSafety Commissioner additionally alleges that Telegram maintained incomplete terms of service addressing terrorism-linked content across its services and failed to inform complainants about the outcomes of their reports regarding unlawful material. Australia is seeking court declarations, penalties, and other orders connected to the alleged breaches.

Telegram has rejected the accusations and stated its intention to contest the proceedings in court. The company says it blocked thousands of extremist communities during 2026. Australia's case, however, will focus on Telegram's conduct, systems, and responses during the investigated period.

Global Pressure on Telegram

The Australian lawsuit adds to the legal challenges facing Telegram and its founder, Pavel Durov. Durov was arrested in France in August 2024 and later placed under formal investigation for alleged complicity in enabling illegal activity on the platform, including the dissemination of child abuse material and drug trafficking. Russian authorities have separately accused Durov of facilitating terrorist activity through channels allegedly used by Ukrainian operatives and have initiated procedures aimed at placing him on an international wanted list.

Telegram, launched in 2013, reports more than one billion monthly active users worldwide. Its large group chats and unlimited broadcast channels enable information to spread rapidly across borders. Australia contends that this scale creates clear obligations to limit serious harm and enforce platform rules.

The proceedings will test how courts apply systemic online safety duties to large encrypted messaging services. Australia's Online Safety Act is among a wave of national regulations—alongside the EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act 2023—that increasingly hold platforms accountable for systemic content moderation failures. A ruling in the case could shape future enforcement actions against platforms hosting public channels and mass-distribution tools. Australia has stated that no online service can circumvent national laws when harmful material remains widely accessible.