Billionaire Elon Musk scores latest win over frequent eSafety sparring partner seeking tougher rules for X
Australia’s Federal Court has rejected an appeal by the eSafety Commissioner in a case connected to X, marking another setback for the regulator in its long-running disputes with Elon Musk’s platform. The ruling matters because it confirms that an informal eSafety request to X to review a user’s post can be challenged through a merits review, potentially limiting how the regulator pursues content concerns outside its formal enforcement powers.
The case arose after eSafety alerted X to a complaint about a post by Celine Baumgarten and asked the platform to consider whether it breached its terms of service. The Administrative Review Tribunal held that it could review that alert; the Full Court found the tribunal had jurisdiction to do so, while leaving unresolved other legal questions. The decision follows previous clashes between X and eSafety over removal requests, transparency obligations and the regulator’s broader online-safety powers.
- Court backs review rights over eSafety’s informal alert to X.
- Ruling is another setback for Australia’s online-safety regulator.
- It may constrain informal platform-content intervention.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of X’s position may argue that regulators should not be able to impose far-reaching content restrictions without clear legal authority and due process. They may see the ruling as protecting open debate, preventing national regulators from effectively setting rules for the global internet, and ensuring that safety measures remain proportionate to freedom of expression and privacy.
The case against
Supporters of the eSafety Commissioner may argue that large platforms have a responsibility to prevent serious online harms and should be subject to robust, enforceable oversight. They may view tougher rules as necessary to protect users, particularly children and vulnerable people, from abuse, exploitation and harmful material where voluntary platform policies may be insufficient.