“Had X Corp's argument been accepted by the Court, it could have set the precedent that the merger of one foreign company with another foreign company could allow it to avoid legal obligations in Australia,” Inman Grant warned.
X has been on slippery ice with Inman Grant since it responded to the first study of 30 questions about how the Platform CSAM checks and removes by leaving many questions blank. X then seemingly stalled, delaying responding to subsequent questions asking the company to fill in the blanks or explain why it couldn't answer the questions.
So when X refused to pay the non-compliance fine last October, Inman Grant had apparently had enough. She soon initiated additional proceedings in December, this time “seek[ing]to impose civil penalties,” Wheelahan noted. And that can now continue as “the further progress of the civil criminal proceedings” has awaited the outcome of Wheelahan's ruling this week, the judge said.
It is unlikely that eSafety will discontinue the civil proceedings. In the press release, eSafety confirmed that the commission “takes compliance with transparency notices seriously and looks forward to ensuring that alleged non-compliance is adequately addressed.”
According to an Australian government review of the Online Safety Act,
X might have been better off sharing more information about how it combats CSAM. Inman Grant reiterated Friday that eSafety is not just targeting X, but that all Big Tech platforms are failing to be transparent about the steps taken to respond to CSAM.
“eSafety remains committed to exercising the provisions available under the Online Safety Act to hold all technology companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia and prioritize the safety and well-being of all Australians,” said Inman Grant.
