Australia Takes Telegram to Court Over Alleged Failure to Remove Terrorist Content

Australia's online-safety regulator has launched Federal Court proceedings against Telegram, accusing the messaging platform of failing to identify and remove violent extremist material after being alerted to its presence.

The civil case was brought by the country's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, under Australia's Online Safety Act.

The regulator alleges that publicly accessible material on Telegram included videos connected to terrorist executions and footage from mass shootings, including the 2019 attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and the 2022 racist mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

According to the allegations, some execution videos remained accessible for weeks after Australian users reported them, while footage associated with the Christchurch and Buffalo attacks remained available for considerably longer.

The eSafety Commissioner argues that Telegram failed not only to remove specific pieces of content promptly but also to take sufficient measures against accounts, channels and groups responsible for circulating the material.

Telegram has rejected the allegations and said it intends to contest the case. The company maintains that it actively works against terrorism-related activity on its service and says it has blocked large numbers of communities associated with extremist content.

Because the case is at an early stage, the regulator's accusations have not been tested or proven in court.

The proceedings represent an important test of how far governments can compel global messaging services to police unlawful material, particularly on platforms designed to provide large-scale communication alongside stronger privacy protections.

Unlike a simple private messaging application, Telegram allows users to establish large channels and public groups capable of reaching substantial audiences. Authorities say those features can also be exploited to distribute propaganda, recruitment material and graphic footage.

The company, however, has long presented privacy, resistance to censorship and freedom of communication as central parts of its identity. That position has made Telegram important to journalists, activists and political movements, but has also brought it into conflict with regulators in several countries.

Australia's case is expected to focus on whether Telegram met its legal responsibilities after receiving notifications about prohibited content and whether its internal systems were adequate to detect and disrupt further circulation.

If the court finds that Telegram breached the law, the company could face substantial financial penalties. The final amount would depend on the findings and the number of breaches established through the proceedings.

The outcome could influence how other governments regulate encrypted or privacy-focused platforms and determine whether technology companies can be held liable for delayed action after violent extremist content is reported.

All allegations remain unproven unless and until determined by the Australian Federal Court.