Australia Hauls Telegram to Court Over Terror Videos

The Australia Telegram court case raises a blunt question: can a national regulator force a global messaging app to remove alleged extremist material fast enough, or punish it when it doesn’t?

Can Australia make Telegram answer in court for alleged pro-terror material?

Australia is taking Telegram to court over allegations that the messaging platform failed to remove "pro-terror" material, including video of the Christchurch shootings, according to BBC World.

The case was launched by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, who said Telegram could face penalties of up to A$54.6m (£28m, US$38m) for alleged failures under the Online Safety Act.

Telegram denies the claims.

"We reject these allegations and will contest them in court," a Telegram spokesperson told the BBC.

The regulator alleges Telegram left content tied to "some of the most notorious acts of known extremist violence in recent history" available after being put on notice. The material allegedly included videos of terrorist executions, the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting, and the Buffalo shooting in New York in May 2022.

Inman Grant said eSafety began asking Telegram in March 2024 what it was doing to combat terrorist and extremist material. She described the next period as "five very difficult months of unresponsiveness".

Telegram later engaged with the agency, she said, but eSafety alleges the platform still maintained a "permissive environment" where extremist content was "very easy to find".

"This should concern all of us," Inman Grant said, adding that "no platform is above the law".

The Australia Telegram court case is now before the Federal Court as a civil penalty proceeding. The court, not the regulator, will decide whether Telegram breached its obligations.

Why is Telegram at the center of this moderation fight?

Telegram sits in a difficult place for regulators because it combines private messaging with large-scale public distribution.

According to eSafety, Telegram reports having more than a billion users worldwide and is visited by Australians on average 1.5 million times a month. The regulator also said the service supports groups of up to 200,000 users, while channels can broadcast to wider audiences with no maximum limit.

That structure matters in this case. eSafety is not only alleging that individual pieces of material stayed online. It says Telegram failed to reduce the risk of repeat breaches by removing relevant accounts, channels and groups after becoming aware of unlawful material.

The regulator’s 30 July 2026 statement says the alleged failures include:

• Removal: Telegram allegedly failed to remove publicly posted pro-terror and other unlawful material after reports by Australian end-users.
• Timing: Some reported material allegedly remained available for up to three weeks.
• Detection: Known material, including the Christchurch and Buffalo attack videos, was allegedly uploaded nearly 3 months before removal.
• Terms: eSafety alleges Telegram failed to have Terms of Service that prohibited users from accessing or distributing pro-terror material across all parts of the service.
• Complaint handling: Telegram allegedly failed to tell complainants the outcome of their reports.

Telegram’s counter-position is simple and legalistic: its anti-terrorism work is substantial, and it rejects the case.

The pressure on Telegram is not confined to Australia. The BBC reported that the announcement came a day after Russia charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism, based on allegations that the app had been used for recruitment by Ukrainian secret services. XOOMAR covered that separate case in Kremlin Targets Telegram Founder Durov in Terror Case.

Durov was also arrested and placed under formal investigation in France in 2024 over alleged failures to moderate the app to reduce criminality. He was later allowed to go home while that investigation continues, according to the BBC.

Could this court case stretch Australia’s power over global apps?

The sharpest part of the Australia Telegram court case is not the potential fine. It is the remedy Inman Grant says Australia could seek if the platform does not comply.

Australia does not issue licences for services like Telegram, Inman Grant said. But she added that the regulator could ask the Federal Court for the service to be stopped in Australia.

"We could apply to the federal court and ask that the service be ceased," she said. "We've never used those powers. We'll see how this all plays out and whether that kind of action is warranted."

That is the high-stakes scenario. The immediate case is about alleged failures to detect, remove, deter and disrupt unlawful material under Australia’s online safety rules. But a ruling against Telegram could clarify how far those rules reach when a global app hosts public channels, large groups and user-generated media accessible inside Australia.

XOOMAR analysis: The case looks less like a narrow takedown dispute and more like a test of operational responsibility. eSafety is not only asking whether specific videos should have been removed. It is alleging that Telegram’s systems, policies and response processes failed after the platform became aware of the material.

The prior enforcement history also matters. eSafety fined Telegram A$1m in February 2025 for failing to respond on time to questions about how it was tackling child abuse and extremist material on the platform.

For readers tracking Australia’s wider technology and public-safety files, XOOMAR has also covered separate domestic infrastructure issues in AusAlert Test Jolts Cinemas but Leaves Phones Silent. That case is not part of the Telegram proceeding, but it shows how closely Australian authorities are scrutinizing systems that affect public safety.

The next concrete step is Telegram’s formal response in court. After that, the timetable will matter: how quickly the Federal Court moves, whether eSafety releases more detail about the material at issue, and whether Telegram argues that its current moderation systems already meet Australia’s legal threshold.

For other platforms operating public channels or large groups in Australia, the watch item is clear: if eSafety wins, compliance will be judged not just by policy language, but by how fast unlawful material disappears after a platform is told it is there.

Impact Analysis

• The case tests how far national online safety laws can reach global messaging platforms.
• Telegram could face penalties of up to A$54.6m if the Federal Court finds it breached its obligations.
• The outcome may influence how platforms respond to extremist content notices from regulators.