Communications Minister Anika Wells has signalled the Albanese Government could support giving Australians the right to take legal action against major technology companies over online harm, as Labor negotiates the passage of its proposed Digital Duty of Care laws which require platforms to give users over 16 choice on what feed they see when they open the app.
Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, Wells acknowledged the impact of private rights of action in the US, where individuals can pursue legal claims against companies, and said she was willing to consider the approach as part of negotiations over the legislation.
The proposal is among the key demands from the Greens, who want individuals and class actions to be able to hold technology platforms legally accountable for harm caused by their services.
The Government’s revised Digital Duty of Care Bill was introduced to Federal Parliament yesterday following consultation on an exposure draft released in September. However, it’s not all that smooth. Labor will need support from the Coalition or crossbench to secure its passage through the Senate.
According to the ABC, Wells said the Coalition have approached her to discuss the Bill, despite shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson recently describing it as a Labor ‘Trojan horse’ designed to impose political censorship.
Together, the Coalition and Greens have called for a Senate inquiry, with Greens communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young pushing for a committee report by 20 November, ahead of the final sitting week.
When addressing concerns about the legislation’s potential impact on free speech, Wells rejected suggestions the Bill would give the Government a pathway to regulate misinformation or disinformation, adding that Australians would remain free to express political opinions, share memes, listen to controversial podcasts and promote conspiracy theories such as claims the Moon landing was fake.
“We are not controlling free speech. And we are not conducting covert surveillance,” Wells said.
The minister also urged parliamentarians to focus on the long-term implications of the legislation rather than party politics, arguing its success should be measured by whether it improved online safety.
“In time, nobody will remember my name, or the politics of the day on which MPs and senators walked into the chamber and voted on this Bill. They’ll only remember whether we got it right,” she said.
One of the Bill’s more contentious provisions would allow the eSafety Commissioner and accredited researchers to use so-called “sock puppet accounts” — fictitious online identities — to investigate how platforms respond to harmful content and comply with their obligations.
Wells defended the measure, arguing investigators sometimes need to pose as younger users to test platform safeguards and gather evidence that can be used in compliance and enforcement proceedings.
She pointed to Australian research examining how platforms responded to complaints about eating disorder content, saying undercover accounts could help researchers assess the effectiveness of existing protections.
Wells also rejected suggestions the provision could be exploited by governments to create fake accounts for political propaganda.
Under the proposed framework, technology companies would face stronger obligations to proactively protect users from online harm, rather than relying solely on complaints after damage has occurred.
Another major component is the Government’s ‘My Feed, My Way’ proposal, which would give users greater control over algorithmically curated social media feeds.
As previously reported by B&T, the proposal could involve platforms periodically prompting users to confirm whether they want to continue receiving algorithm-driven recommendations.
Tech platforms who have implemented changes to algorithm controls recently include Meta (Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) and Google (YouTube).
