Closed or not in force
DecidedCourtUpdated 14 May 2024
eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499
Federal Court of Australia
eSafety sought to force worldwide removal of material after a stabbing video. The Court refused to extend an interim injunction and treated geo-blocking as a reasonable step under s 109 of the Online Safety Act. eSafety later discontinued that injunction fight.
At stake
Global deletion versus Australia-only withholding after a removal notice.
Outcome. Injunction not extended. Geo-blocking accepted as a reasonable step in that case.
Opened April 2024Decided 14 May 2024
Federal Court of Australia — [2024] FCA 499DecidedCourtUpdated 31 July 2025
X Corp v eSafety Commissioner — BOSE reporting notice
Federal Court of Australia; Full Court
X argued it did not inherit Twitter Inc.’s duty to answer a February 2023 Basic Online Safety Expectations notice. Wheelahan J dismissed the case on 4 October 2024. The Full Court dismissed the appeal with costs on 31 July 2025.
At stake
Whether X must answer Australian transparency notices issued to pre-merger Twitter.
Outcome. X lost at first instance and on appeal. Later civil-penalty proceedings followed.
Opened 2023 (VID956/2023)Decided 4 October 2024 (single judge); 31 July 2025 (Full Court)
eSafety / Federal Court [2025] FCAFC 99DecidedCourtUpdated 12 August 2026
Classification of X under the Relevant Electronic Services Standard
Federal Court of Australia (Justice Raper)
The Court held X is a social media service and is not also a “relevant electronic service” for the extra RES Standard. That blocked an overlapping regulatory track eSafety had pursued (potential penalties reported up to A$49.5 million on that theory).
At stake
Whether X can be stacked under two Online Safety Act classes at once.
Outcome. X won this classification fight. Ordinary social-media safety duties remain.
Decided 12 August 2026
Contemporaneous Federal Court reporting, 12 August 2026