Australia has filed a Telegram pro-terror content lawsuit in the Federal Court, putting one of the world’s most popular messaging platforms on the wrong side of the law in a case that could cost it up to A$54.6 million. The action, brought by the country’s eSafety Commission after a year-long investigation, centers on allegations that Telegram left videos of terrorist executions and mass shootings accessible on its platform long after being warned to take them down.
Summary
Key takeaways
- Australia’s eSafety Commission has commenced civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court, seeking penalties of up to A$54.6 million under the Online Safety Act.
- Telegram allegedly failed to remove pro-terror videos, including footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting and the May 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, for months after being notified.
- The regulator also alleges Telegram failed to remove accounts, channels, and groups linked to extremist content, and failed to notify users who filed complaints of the outcomes of their reports.
- Telegram has denied the allegations, saying its anti-terrorism efforts are “extensive” and “well documented,” and that it will contest the case in court.
- The Australian action arrives days after Russia’s Federal Security Service charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with aiding terrorist activity, and follows his 2024 arrest by French authorities over related allegations.
Australia’s eSafety Commission Takes Telegram to Federal Court
The civil penalty proceedings were filed this week following a year-long investigation by the eSafety Commission. At the center of the case is Australia’s Online Safety Act, which imposes systemic safety obligations on digital platforms operating in the country. Breaching those obligations carries penalties of up to A$54.6 million — a figure that reflects how seriously Australian regulators are treating platform accountability for violent extremist material.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the investigation began in March 2024, after which her agency endured what she described as “five very difficult months of unresponsiveness” from Telegram. Even after the platform started engaging, she said, it maintained what she called a “permissive environment” for extremist content that was “very easy to find.”
“This case concerns content linked to some of the most notorious acts of known extremist violence in recent history,” Inman Grant said. She also warned that the material “only serves to desensitise, to normalise and to sometimes radicalise” users, and alleged the platform was “sometimes used to plan attacks.” She added: “No platform is above the law.”
Telegram pushed back directly. A company spokesperson said its anti-terrorism efforts are “extensive” and “well documented,” adding: “We reject these allegations and will contest them in court.”
What Telegram Allegedly Left Online — and for How Long
The specific allegations detail a pattern of slow or absent content removal. According to the regulator, Telegram failed to take down flagged videos of terrorist executions reported by Australian users, with some content remaining live for up to three weeks. More troubling, the regulator alleges the platform failed to proactively detect known pro-terror material — content that had already been identified and flagged in other contexts.
Two cases illustrate the scale of the alleged failures. The live-streamed footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting in New Zealand, one of the most widely documented acts of mass violence in recent memory, and footage from the May 2022 Buffalo mass shooting in New York were both allegedly accessible on Telegram — the latter having been uploaded nearly three months before it was removed.
The regulator goes further than just the content itself. eSafety alleges Telegram also failed to remove the underlying accounts, channels, and groups connected to that material — a structural failure that, in the regulator’s view, left the door open for repeated violations. The platform is also accused of failing to maintain terms of service that clearly prohibit pro-terror material across all parts of its ecosystem.
The complaint notification gap
One of the less-discussed but legally significant allegations is that Telegram failed to inform users who submitted reports of what happened to their complaints. Under Australia’s Online Safety Act, platforms have obligations not just to act on reports but to keep complainants informed of the outcome. This procedural failure adds another dimension to the case beyond content moderation alone.
The broader implication is substantial. If users cannot trust that their reports lead to any visible action — or even a notification — it undermines the entire feedback loop that regulators rely on to hold platforms accountable. For a platform with over one billion users worldwide and an average of 1.5 million monthly Australian visitors, those systemic gaps carry real weight in a legal proceeding.
Pavel Durov and the Growing Global Pressure on Telegram
The Australian lawsuit lands at a particularly exposed moment for Telegram and its founder. The action was filed just one day after Russia’s Federal Security Service charged Pavel Durov with aiding terrorist activity, placing him on an international wanted list over allegations that the platform was used for recruitment by Ukrainian secret services.
Durov, who holds both Emirati and French citizenship, was arrested by French authorities in 2024 over separate allegations that Telegram failed to adequately counter criminal activity on the platform. He was eventually allowed to return home while the French investigation continues, and he has denied any wrongdoing across all proceedings.
Taken together, the actions by Australian, Russian, and French authorities point to a pattern: regulators in multiple jurisdictions have concluded that Telegram’s content moderation posture is structurally inadequate, not merely occasionally slow. That consistency matters for how courts and other regulators are likely to interpret future cases involving the platform.
Australia’s regulatory track record with Telegram
This is not the first time Australia’s eSafety Commission has acted against Telegram. In February 2025, the regulator fined the platform A$1 million for failing to respond on time to questions about how it was handling child abuse and extremist material. The current lawsuit represents a significant escalation in both legal mechanism and financial exposure.
Inman Grant also noted that while Australia does not issue operating licenses to platforms like Telegram, authorities retain the power to apply to the Federal Court to have a service ceased entirely. She said those powers have never been used, adding: “We’ll see how this all plays out and whether that kind of action is warranted.”
That is a significant signal. The A$54.6 million penalty is the headline number, but the threat of a court-ordered shutdown — however unlikely at this stage — reframes the stakes for a platform that has long positioned itself as resistant to regulatory pressure. Whether Telegram’s stated willingness to contest the case in court will hold up against the weight of documented content failures is now a question for Australian judges to answer.
FAQ
What legal action has Australia taken against Telegram?
Australia’s eSafety Commission has commenced civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court, alleging the platform failed to remove pro-terror content and breached systemic safety obligations under the Online Safety Act, following a year-long investigation.
What types of content did Telegram allegedly fail to remove?
Telegram allegedly failed to remove videos of terrorist executions and mass shootings, including live-streamed footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting and the May 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, with some content remaining accessible for months after Telegram was put on notice.
What penalties could Telegram face under Australia’s Online Safety Act?
Telegram could face civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million — equivalent to approximately US$38 million — for breaching Australia’s online safety codes and standards.
Are there similar legal pressures on Telegram outside Australia?
Yes. Russia’s Federal Security Service charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with aiding terrorist activity in 2026, and French authorities arrested him in 2024 over allegations that Telegram failed to adequately counter criminal activity. Durov has denied wrongdoing in all cases.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.
