Australia’s online safety regulator has launched civil penalty proceedings against Telegram, alleging the messaging platform left terrorist propaganda and footage of mass killings accessible for days or weeks after users reported it. The case places one of the world’s largest encrypted communications services before the Federal Court over whether its moderation systems meet Australia’s legal requirements for harmful online content.
The eSafety Commissioner said its year-long investigation found alleged systemic breaches of the Online Safety Act. Telegram is accused of failing to detect and remove pro-terror material, including videos depicting terrorist executions and mass shootings, despite reports from Australian users.
Under Australia’s online safety codes and standards, the alleged breaches could carry civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million. The proceedings do not themselves establish liability, and the Federal Court will determine whether Telegram violated the law and whether any penalty should be imposed.
Reported material allegedly remained online for weeks
According to eSafety, some unlawful material remained available on Telegram for as long as three weeks after Australian end-users flagged it through the platform’s reporting tools. The regulator also cited more widely known violent content, including footage from the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand and the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting in the United States.
The Christchurch attack was livestreamed by its perpetrator and rapidly copied across online platforms, becoming a defining test for content moderation systems. The Buffalo shooting similarly prompted global concerns over the distribution of violent extremist material online.
eSafety alleges that copies of such material were uploaded to Telegram and stayed available for nearly three months before removal. The commissioner’s case focuses on the platform’s systems rather than isolated moderation decisions, arguing that Telegram failed to meet ongoing obligations designed to prevent repeated availability of unlawful content.
The regulator also alleges Telegram did not remove associated accounts, groups and channels after identifying prohibited material. That part of the complaint targets the mechanisms that can allow content to reappear through replacement channels or related accounts after a single post has been taken down.
Complaint handling is also under scrutiny
The proceedings extend beyond the removal of individual videos. eSafety alleges Telegram did not maintain terms of service that prohibited pro-terror content across every part of its service, and that it failed to tell complainants the outcomes of their reports.
Those claims reach the practical details of platform governance. A service may offer a reporting button, but Australia’s regulatory framework also requires processes capable of responding to reports and communicating outcomes to users. The court case will test whether Telegram’s policies and enforcement procedures were sufficient for the scale of its operation.
Telegram says it has more than one billion users worldwide, according to the regulator. eSafety said Australians visit the service an average of 1.5 million times each month. Telegram groups can include up to 200,000 members, while broadcast channels have no maximum audience limit, allowing a single administrator to distribute material to a potentially vast user base.
That architecture has made Telegram useful for large public communities as well as private conversations. It has also created a difficult moderation environment: content can circulate in major public channels, large semi-private groups and numerous smaller communities that can be recreated after enforcement action.
Legal pressure on Telegram has intensified
Australia’s action arrived a day after Russia’s Federal Security Service charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with aiding terrorist activity and placed him on an international wanted list, according to the material provided. The Russian allegations concern claimed failures to remove content used to coordinate attacks inside the country.
Durov, who holds Emirati and French citizenship, was arrested by French authorities in 2024 over allegations that Telegram had not adequately addressed criminal activity on the platform. He has denied wrongdoing.
The separate actions show that Telegram’s approach to content moderation is attracting pressure from governments with sharply different legal and political systems. Australia’s case is based on civil safety obligations and will proceed through the Federal Court, while the Russian action concerns criminal allegations against the company’s founder.
For Telegram, the Australian proceeding could provide a detailed judicial examination of whether a global messaging service can rely on broad platform rules and user reporting while meeting country-specific requirements for violent extremist content. A ruling against the company could require changes to its reporting, removal and account-enforcement systems for Australian users, alongside any financial penalty.
Crypto communities use Telegram, but disruption claims remain premature
Telegram is widely used by cryptocurrency projects, traders and developer communities to publish announcements, host discussion groups and operate automated bots. Many token teams use channels as a direct distribution tool because they can reach large audiences without the character limits or ranking systems common on social media feeds.
That use does not mean the Australian case threatens cryptocurrency trading or wallets. The proceedings concern alleged failures involving terrorist material and user-safety obligations, not digital-asset activity. The eSafety Commissioner has sought civil penalties; the supplied information does not state that the regulator has requested a nationwide block of Telegram or that the court is considering one.
Users of Telegram-based crypto services may nevertheless be watching the case closely because platform-level enforcement can affect the reliability of channels used for project communications. Teams that depend heavily on a single Telegram group for support announcements, security alerts or governance discussions face operational risk when accounts are removed, impersonated or disrupted.
The immediate legal question is whether Telegram’s moderation and complaint-handling systems complied with Australian law. The Federal Court’s eventual decision will determine whether the company faces a penalty of up to A$54.6 million and whether its platform procedures must change for the Australian market.
Concerned about platform risks and regulation? Explore crypto safety standards every trader should know to strengthen your online protection.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
