What to Know About Australia’s Proposed ‘Digital Duty of Care’ Laws

Operators of social media platforms, AI chatbots, search engines and apps could be subject to civil penalties of up to $109.2 million (US$78.9 million) for failing to ensure a safe online environment under new proposed laws.

The Albanese Labor government has released the draft version of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 (pdf).

According to the government, the new digital “duty of care” will ensure some of the most powerful companies in the world step up and do more to “keep Australians safe from harm.”

“These new laws will put the onus on digital service providers to provide a safe online environment, setting minimum standards for the features and tools they use,” it said.

The draft is currently open for public consultation and may be amended before being introduced to Parliament. However, it sets out the Labor government’s expectations for digital platforms and other online service providers.

A Choice to Opt Out of Algorithm-Driven Feed

Under the legislation, digital platforms need to provide users with a choice between algorithm-driven feed and following-only feed.

“Users can choose to opt in to having their default feed include personalised content recommended by the algorithm,” the government said.

“Alternatively, users can opt out of personally recommended content in their default feed and see the friends and creators they choose to follow.”

How Social Media Platforms Are Affected?

Platforms would be required to proactively manage the risks created by their services, rather than relying solely on individual users to report problems.

Specifically, they would need to prepare written risk assessments identifying factors such as foreseeable harms, the content and design features that could create those harms, the people who could be affected, and the likelihood and severity of those harms.

The assessments would have to be conducted annually, as well as ahead of significant service changes that could introduce new risks.

In addition, platforms would be required to appropriately manage their design features, including by providing “user empowerment tools” where required to allow users to control how particular features operate, including the type of content recommended to them.

Extra Protection for Children

Children under 18 will be offered stronger protection as platforms would need to block porn, content that encourages disordered eating, material that attacks women, posts that glorify crime or dangerous stunts, and bullying.

Social media companies would also need to disable design features deemed to have negative behavioural impacts for children under 16 in Australia.

What Are the Penalties?

The maximum penalty has been increased from 30,000 to 60,000 units. At the current rate of $364 per Commonwealth penalty unit, this equates to $21.84 million for an individual and potentially $109.2 million for a corporation under the applicable multiplier.

While the legislation would impose a “duty of care” on digital platforms, it would not make them automatically liable for every piece of harmful content, provided they take reasonable steps to identify and mitigate the associated risks.

Censorship Concerns

The bill has already raised censorship concerns, with One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson said the government should not be “given more power” over what Australians can see and say online.

She questioned how Australians could challenge what she described as “Labor’s lies” if the government can pressure platforms to silence its critics and restrict free speech.

“All this talk from Albanese about a digital duty of care and controlling algorithms is just cover for what it really is: a Chinese Communist Party-style internet censorship bill,” Hanson said.

Liberal Senator Alex Antic said the draft of the digital duty of care bill was “much worse” than he first thought.

“Instead of winning the argument, they are rewriting the rules of speech itself and calling it “safety,’” Antic said.

“This is not about protecting people. It is about controlling the conversation.”

American author and free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger raised concerns that Wells wants to “censor the entire global internet” on Sep 10.

The consultation closes on Sep. 22, with the bill expected to be introduced to Parliament later this year. Both the Coalition and One Nation have made it clear they oppose the legislation.