Elon Musk's X mashed by Australian court for evading child protection reporting

Argument that it didn't inherit Twitter's legal obligations did not hit the spot

Australia's Federal Court has rejected Elon Musk's assertion that X/Twitter does not need to comply with local requirements to provide information about how it detects, removes and prevents the spread of child sexual abuse material.

The case centered on Australia's "Basic Online Safety Expectations" – a set of regulations that requires online platform operators to take reasonable steps to ensure users' safety. The Expectations are overseen by a regulator named the eSafety Commissioner, which can demand platforms report on how they are meeting the expectations.

In early 2023, the Commissioner sent reporting notices to Discord, Google, TikTok, Twitch and Twitter – before Elon Musk acquired it – asking them to explain measures they take to detect and address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. In October of the same year, the Commissioner found that Google and X – as Twitter had then become – had not responded adequately.

In December 2023 the Commissioner took the matter to court, in pursuit of a civil penalty for X's non-compliance.

"eSafety alleges that X Corp. did not prepare a report in the manner and form specified because it failed to respond or failed to respond truthfully and accurately to certain questions in the notice," states the Commissioner's announcement of its lawsuit.

Judgment in X Corp v eSafety Commissioner was handed down on Friday and it's a loss for X.

The Musk-owned social network argued that because the Commissioner's notice was issued to Twitter, X wasn't obliged to comply. The judge was having none of that, concluding that US law means obligations pass from an acquired or merged company to its new owner. It didn't help that a letter from X's lawyers to the Commissioner stated "X Corp. is the successor in interest to Twitter, Inc." and "All of Twitter, Inc.’s assets, liabilities, rights, etc. passed to X Corp. on 15 March 2023 by operation of law."

X also argued that the Commissioner's notice was issued in the wrong place, because once Twitter moved to Nevada the failure to file the response didn't happen in Australia. Again, the judge disagreed. Musk's folly also tried to argue it had been given an extension. The judge disagreed.

The decision means X is up for a AUD$615,000 ($420,000) penalty.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Gran welcomed the decision.

"Had X Corp's argument been accepted by the Court it could have set the concerning precedent that a foreign company's merger with another foreign company might enable it to avoid regulatory obligations in Australia," she's quoted as explaining in a statement.

At the time of writing, X and Elon Musk appear not to have made any remarks on the matter. ®