eSafety chief Julie Inman Grant pushes powers to ban tech giants from local advertising cash and data

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is pushing for bans on advertising revenue and siphoning of Australians’ personal data as punishment for tech companies who breach online safety rules.

eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant is pushing for “business disruption powers” restricting advertising revenue and siphoning of Australians’ personal data as punishment for tech companies that breach online safety rules.

After abandoning her Federal Court case to remove videos of the Wakeley terrorist stabbing from Elon Musk’s social media platform X, Ms Inman Grant warned that the 2021 Online Safety Act had been “leapfrogged” by overseas ­jurisdictions.

Ms Inman Grant, who has been the country’s online safety tsar for more than seven years, said Australia’s enforcement powers and penalties must be on par with domestic and global regulators.

As the Albanese government reviews the Online Safety Act, Ms Inman Grant said “we should be looking at business disruption powers”.

“Why should these companies that aren’t abiding by our laws be monetising our citizens’ personal data and taking our advertising funds? This is where we need to look, particularly with the more recalcitrant players,” she told The Australian.

“If a company did not comply with our laws, Australian advertisers shouldn’t be giving them money. They shouldn’t be able to siphon our personal data and monetise it.”

Ms Inman Grant, who has overseen staff growth from 35 to 210 and is scheduled to finish her term in 2027, said withdrawing her Federal Court action against X was “strategic” as the watchdog man­ages multiple litigations in the courts and Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

“The decisions made are beyond the boundaries of one lawsuit or one set of litigation. As the commissioner, I have to make prudent decisions about responsible use of public funds but also responsible use of my investigative and legal resources,” she said.

Ms Inman Grant said since the Online Safety Act passed under the Coalition, the EU and Britain now had stronger powers under their Digital Services Act and Online Safety Bill, which includes fines “along the margins of 10 per cent of overall revenue and turnover”.

“I think that would carry a lot more weight. If you look at the Online Safety Bill (in the UK), they have a range of powers if there is lack of compliance with some of their hard-hitting rules.

“I’m not sure I agree with the idea of jailing executives … X Corp has removed all of their executives here. The reason I have a concern about that is the local Meta, Microsoft and Google people are also here to represent the interests of Australians and pushback on their corporate headquarters.”

Ms Inman Grant said Australian agencies were working closely with the White House and would support congress taking decisive action around online safety and preventing the hosting and distribution of illegal content, including child sex abuse and violent extremism material, in the US.

“We’re working very closely with the US right now on a global partnership to counter child sexual exploitation and maybe we ­expand that to terrorism content as well.”

After lifting a temporary order for X Corp to hide videos of the western Sydney stabbing, which the platform formerly known as Twitter did not comply with, Federal Court judge Geoffrey Kennett said a global ban was not a “reasonable” step under Australian law because it would be “ignored or disparaged in other countries”.

Amid concerns about freedom of speech and violent online content, Ms Inman Grant said enforcing powers across international jurisdictions was an issue for all countries. “So many governments around the world are focused on how do we rein in the global tech giants, how do we prevent them from causing more damage to our citizens?”

“Maybe this requires a Bretton-Woods of digital disarmament or more of a convention or treaty to work through what we as democratic sovereign nations should expect from US-based companies in terms of complying with our laws and common decency.”

Ms Inman Grant said the AAT case, brought by X, would independently test the “merits” of the eSafety Commissioner’s powers, weaknesses “or where there needs to be further definitions about what removal means and what is sufficient”.

“Our next Federal Court case with X Corp (will) be very significant in that they did not comply with our transparency notice around what they were doing to combat child sex abuse material.”