Australia’s Digital Duty Bill: Up to A$109.2M in Penalties

In her 15 October 2026 announcement, Communications Minister Anika Wells said she had introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 to Australia’s Parliament, described its proposed requirements as “basic safety standards” and set the maximum penalty for failing the duty at A$109.2 million. The bill would require online services to address serious harms proactively. It also proposes a choice of primary social media feed for Australians over 16.

The department’s 20 October update identifies games, social media platforms and AI chatbots among the services facing minimum standards, alongside extra protection for children. It describes a choice between algorithmically recommended content and content from followed people or pages. The legislation remains before Parliament, so these duties and feed controls are proposals, not requirements already in force.

Which services would carry the duty?

The core duty would reach beyond social media. An analysis by Australian digital-society researchers explains that the bill would amend the Online Safety Act and cover services including websites, messaging apps, online games and social platforms. Apps and AI chatbots also appear in the government’s account of services expected to meet minimum safety standards. The relevant question for a provider would be how its service exposes Australian users to the harms covered by the law.

Across those services, providers would have to take appropriate action against seriously harmful material and conduct. The proposal also addresses harm arising from features and tools, making the operation of a service part of the safety obligation. A provider’s response would therefore extend beyond removing an individual item after a complaint: it would need to consider risks created by the way users encounter content or interact with others.

The introduced bill draws boundaries around harmful-content duties. It excludes categories including professional news, qualifying artistic and educational content, scientific and academic research, and material that helps protect or promote public health and safety. Those distinctions matter for a website or platform that hosts both potentially harmful material and legitimate public-interest information.

What would change for children?

A child uses an online game, one of the services that would face additional safety duties under Australia’s bill.

Services used by children would face an additional duty concerning material, conduct and features harmful to them. The proposed protections address pornography, content encouraging eating disorders or life-endangering stunts, and material promoting hostility towards women. They also cover harmful design features, so the obligation concerns the experience a service creates as well as individual posts or messages.

For an online game, the relevant risks could arise through its interactions or features; for a chatbot, they could arise through material presented during a conversation. Both fall within the types of service named in the proposal, but the protective measures would depend on the service and the harm involved. The shared requirement would be proactive attention to Australian children’s safety rather than a single identical control for every provider.

The bill also proposes wider powers for the eSafety Commissioner. These include removal notices for apps and websites designed or predominantly used to generate fake nude material, minimum standards for platform complaints processes, and a shorter required response to cyberbullying and abuse complaints. Those measures address particular services and complaint pathways alongside the broader duty on providers.

What could social media users change in their feeds?

A conceptual social media feed contrasts followed content with recommendations, reflecting the choice proposed for Australian users.

The proposed feed choice concerns a social platform’s primary feed: eligible Australian users would be able to choose content from people and pages they follow instead of algorithmically recommended content. That is a distinct obligation for social media services, rather than a feed feature required of every game, app or chatbot covered by the safety duty. It would let users make followed accounts the basis of what they see when opening a social platform.

The bill would give the communications minister power to specify user-control tools and how they function. The department’s consultation on the proposed feed rule describes a following-only option for Australian logged-in social media users and accepts submissions until 5 November 2026. The government has described the initiative as a choice for Australians over 16; the detailed operating requirements remain subject to the legislative process and a later rule.

That sequence matters for users. Passage of the bill would establish the power to require a feed control, while the subsequent instrument would set requirements for delivering it. The choice described so far concerns the primary feed; it does not mean recommendations would disappear from every part of a social media service.

How would the penalty take effect?

The A$109.2 million figure is a proposed maximum for failure to comply with the digital duty of care, not an automatic charge on every service within its scope. A penalty would depend on the legislation passing and a breach being established. Its scale places weight on whether providers take effective action to address covered risks in their services.

The bill would also change the framework in which providers meet online-safety obligations. Pinsent Masons’ account of the introduced bill describes a proposed 12-month transition before the duty commences and says a Senate committee is accepting submissions until 30 October 2026, with its report due by 20 November 2026. That transition would give providers time to prepare if Parliament passes the legislation; it does not bring the proposed duty into force now.

The committee’s report is the next scheduled decision point for the bill’s parliamentary scrutiny. Its findings may shape how the broad safety obligation and the powers behind feed choice proceed before Australians or online services face new requirements.