Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant has filed legal proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging the platform failed to remove pro-terror material including video of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting, the May 2022 Buffalo shooting, ISIS-related content, beheading videos, and terrorist execution footage (BBC; Nine).

The case, filed on July 30, 2026, seeks penalties of up to A$54.6 million (£28 million, US$38 million) for non-compliance with Telegram's statutory safety obligations under Australia's Online Safety Act — a law that gives the eSafety Commissioner powers to require platforms to remove harmful content and to report on their safety measures (BBC).

The eSafety Commissioner's agency first began inquiring into what Telegram was doing to combat terrorist and extremist material in March 2024. What followed, according to Inman-Grant, were "five very difficult months of unresponsiveness" before the platform began engaging with the regulator (BBC).

In February 2025, eSafety issued Telegram an infringement notice of nearly A$1 million (US$640,000) for failing to meet a transparency reporting notice deadline by over five months (eSafety; Reuters). Telegram subsequently applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the transparency notice but discontinued the proceedings before they were resolved (eSafety court documents).

The transparency notice regime is not Telegram-specific. eSafety has issued similar legal transparency notices to Google, Meta, Twitter/X, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Reddit, each requiring reporting on safety measures (eSafety). Telegram's non-compliance trajectory, however, has now escalated to full litigation.

The commissioner alleges that Telegram's terms of service did not prohibit pro-terror material and that the platform left terrorist execution and mass shooting videos online for weeks after they were reported (SMH). The specific content cited includes the Christchurch mosque shooting video, the Buffalo shooting video, and videos of terrorist executions and beheadings (BBC; Nine).

A Telegram spokesperson said the platform rejects the allegations and will contest them in court (BBC).

The Albanese Government has weighed in directly. An official statement from the Department of Infrastructure, posted July 30, 2026, welcomed the eSafety Commissioner's enforcement action against Telegram (minister.infrastructure.gov.au).

Inman-Grant also indicated that the eSafety agency could apply to the Federal Court to request that Telegram's service be ceased in Australia, though she noted those powers have never been used (BBC).

Reuters reported on the legal action on July 29, 2026, in a dispatch authored by Alasdair Pal (Reuters).

The broader context here matters for anyone tracking platform regulation. Australia's Online Safety Act gives the eSafety Commissioner powers that are among the most expansive in any democratic jurisdiction: issuing transparency notices, levying fines for non-response, and ultimately seeking court orders to block a service entirely. The trajectory from notice, to fine, to litigation, to the mention of service cessation powers maps a regulatory escalation pathway that other jurisdictions studying platform governance will be watching closely. Think of it as a ladder of enforcement steps, each one more serious than the last, with the final rung being the power to shut a platform down in the country altogether.

The fact that Telegram initially challenged the transparency notice in court and then withdrew suggests a legal strategy that may now shift to defending the substantive allegations rather than contesting the regulator's authority to ask questions.

The government's decision to issue a public statement of support is also notable. It signals that this is not merely a regulator operating in isolation but an enforcement action with executive backing, which could raise the political stakes for any platform contemplating non-compliance with Australian statutory obligations.

The case will now turn on whether the Federal Court accepts eSafety's characterization of Telegram's obligations under the Online Safety Act and whether the platform's content moderation failures, as alleged, meet the statutory threshold for penalty. The A$54.6 million maximum fine, the explicit mention of unused service-blocking powers, and the government's public alignment with the commissioner all point to an enforcement test case with implications well beyond a single platform's Australian operations.