Australia introduced legislation on October 15 that would require online services to reduce serious harms before they occur, extending its internet-safety framework beyond responding to complaints about individual material.
The proposed digital duty of care would reach services including games, apps and AI chatbots. The government says it would require platforms to examine harmful features and conduct as well as content, with additional protections for users under 18.
The bill is a proposal before Parliament, not an operative new duty. Communications Minister Anika Wells said non-compliance would attract penalties of up to A$109.2 million under the proposed regime.
One practical change concerns what people see when they open a social-media service. The legislation would allow the minister to require user-empowerment tools, including a choice between recommended material and a feed limited to accounts the user follows.
The department opened consultation on the proposed feed-choice rule at 9 a.m. Australian Eastern Daylight Time on October 15. Submissions close at 11.59 p.m. on November 5.
That rule depends on the bill receiving royal assent. The consultation asks how a following-only option should operate for Australian logged-in users; it does not mean the minister has already imposed the requirement.
Other proposed changes include powers to remove nudify apps and websites, shorter response times for cyberbullying and abuse complaints, and minimum standards for platforms’ complaints processes.
The government says the bill has been adjusted following feedback to exempt professional news material and entertainment media, and to give Parliament scrutiny over additional categories of harm. Those details matter to the scope of the proposed duty, which is intended to govern service design as well as the material services distribute.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman welcomed the bill but urged Parliament to strengthen access to independent dispute resolution. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said preventive duties alone would not give people a practical remedy when platforms leave complaints unresolved. Her intervention puts the handling of individual disputes alongside the government’s focus on reducing harm at the level of service design.
