Digital duty of care legislation introduced into Australian parliament

The introduction of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 follows consultation on an exposure draft released in September. The bill remains one of the most significant proposed reforms to Australia's online safety framework since the commencement of the Online Safety Act 2021.

The DDoC would impose proactive obligations on a broad range of online service providers to identify and manage foreseeable online harms, including those arising from platform design, recommender systems, AI technologies and other digital features. It would also introduce mandatory risk assessments, transparency obligations, user empowerment measures, age assurance requirements and expanded powers for the eSafety Commissioner.

Veronica Scott, a privacy and technology expert at Pinsent Masons, said: “Following consultation, several revisions have been made to the legislation.”

“The government's decision to abandon a ‘reasonably practicable’ standard in favour of an ‘appropriate and effective’ test has the potential to raise the compliance burden significantly for in-scope online services,” she said.

“Importantly, it expressly excludes cost as a relevant factor when assessing whether measures satisfy this standard.”

The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2026. The committee is accepting submissions until 30 October 2026, providing stakeholders with a further opportunity to comment on the proposed reforms before it reports to parliament. The inquiry will play an important role in determining whether any further amendments should be made before the legislation returns to parliament for consideration by the Senate.

The obligation would extend to a broad range of online services, including social media platforms, hosting services, search engines, app distribution services, AI content generation tools and providers that build or support technology used by online services.

The DDoC would replace the existing industry codes, standards and basic online safety expectations framework with a single overarching regime applying across a broad range of online services. The legislation allows for a 12-month transition period before the digital duty of care commences and the existing online safety framework is repealed.

Elly Krambias of Pinsent Masons said: “One key change from the exposure draft is the government's decision to remove the minister's power to expand the categories of harmful online content captured by the DDoC.”

“This is to address concerns raised during consultation about excessively broad powers being given to the executive,” she said.

The legislation would introduce a detailed carve-out for certain types of content. Professional news, material considered in the public interest, scientific and academic research, court and tribunal proceedings, public health information and certain entertainment content are now excluded. No equivalent carve-out appeared in the exposure draft.

The reforms are consistent with broader international regulatory developments. The European Commission's proposed Kids Online Safety Act (KIDS Act) is expected to introduce EU-wide child online safety measures, including age-based protections, age assurance requirements and obligations linked to the risks posed by digital services.

Like the DDoC, the KIDS Act proposals focus on preventing harm through proactive obligations on service providers, rather than relying solely on interventions after harm has occurred. Both initiatives reflect a broader shift towards a safety-by-design approach, requiring platforms to assess risks, implement appropriate safeguards and take greater responsibility for the safety outcomes generated by their services.

Despite the amendments, passage of the DDoC legislation is not yet certain. The Coalition has criticised aspects of the proposed legislation and indicated it will oppose the bill, meaning the government will need the support of the crossbench to secure its passage through the Senate.

Although the Greens have signalled support for stronger online safety obligations, they are also advocating allowing Australians to sue major technology companies for compensation where harm has occurred, as well as higher penalties for non-compliance.

Communications Minister Anika Wells, speaking at a recent National Press Club address, indicated the government is open to considering whether individuals should have a private right of action under the DDoC framework. She noted that private enforcement mechanisms could potentially complement the eSafety Commissioner's regulatory role.

Stakeholders generally expressed support for the exposure draft, favouring a more proactive approach to addressing online harms. However, concerns have been raised about whether certain definitions in the framework are sufficiently clear, the extent of ministerial and regulatory discretion under the regime, and the need to ensure appropriate safeguards for freedom of expression.

Commentators have also highlighted the importance of maintaining access to legitimate educational, scientific and public-interest information, cautioning that online services may otherwise adopt an overly restrictive approach to content moderation in an effort to comply with the new obligations.

If enacted, the bill would also strengthen the Commissioner's existing enforcement toolkit, including by expanding take-down and link-deletion powers and increasing penalties under the Online Safety Act framework.