Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok have raised objections to Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill, arguing that parts of the draft give government and regulators too much latitude over online services. The debate is about who should set the rules for platform safety, and how tightly those rules should be written.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
The bill would require online service providers to identify foreseeable risks and take steps to protect Australians from harm. The article says the draft could expose providers to fines of up to AU$100 million. It reports that 126 submissions went to a Senate committee, including feedback from the four platforms.
Their objections differ. Google supports a statutory duty but seeks clearer definitions and exemptions for some services. Snap argues that the draft removes a “reasonably practicable” qualification from the core duty. TikTok says ministerial and eSafety Commissioner powers need stronger safeguards and parliamentary oversight. Meta calls for clear, enforceable parameters and warns about transparency and compliance uncertainty.
Why it matters
This is a live argument over how Australia regulates services people use to communicate, share content and access information. The platforms’ submissions raise questions about privacy, oversight and whether rules should prescribe specific design choices or focus on outcomes. The bill is proposed, not law, and the companies’ submissions are advocacy, not a neutral assessment of what would make people safer.
Our read
The platforms have a direct interest in keeping their room to manoeuvre, which does not make every concern wrong or every assurance reassuring. The useful test is whether the final rules clearly define duties and checks on regulators while still making providers answer for foreseeable risks. “Trust us” is not a complete safety framework, from either side.
What to watch
- Whether the committee recommends changes to the draft bill.
- How the government responds to calls for narrower powers and clearer definitions.
- Whether the final proposal explains how safety duties will be assessed and enforced. Activity teaser Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok have objected to parts of Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill, which would require online services to identify risks and take steps to protect people from harm. The platforms say the draft leaves regulators too much room to dictate how services operate. The bill is still a proposal, and the submissions are advocacy. The harder question is how to write enforceable safety rules without handing either platforms or regulators a blank cheque.
Discussion spark: Should online safety laws set specific limits on platform design, or leave companies more discretion if they must show that their services protect users?
Sources and evidence
- Source update (5 November 2026, 21:58 UTC)
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.