DUNYA NEWS
Live
Technology

Elon Musk's X loses Australia child protection compliance lawsuit

Updated on:

An Australian court upheld a A$650K fine on Elon Musk's X Corp for failing to provide child protection info, ending a 3-year dispute; X also pays A$100K in legal costs.

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian court upheld ​a regulator's fine against Elon Musk's social media company X Corp ‌after it admitted violating the law by failing to supply information about its online child protection measures, ending a nearly three-year dispute.

After the eSafety regulator, a frequent target of online attacks by ​Musk, fined the company in October 2023 for what it called an ​inadequate response to a standard request for information about anti-child exploitation ⁠processes, the company resolved the dispute on Thursday by admitting wrongdoing.

"The respondent admits ​that it contravened the Act," said Christopher Tran, a lawyer for the eSafety Commissioner, ​referring to Australia's Online Safety Act, in a Federal Court hearing.

"There was ongoing noncompliance for some 38 days."

The resolution ends a legal battle which began when the regulator fined the company ​formerly called Twitter A$610,500 ($437,000) over its answers to some 25 questions. X Corp ​initially sought to overturn the penalty on grounds that the company had changed its name ‌since being ⁠acquired by Musk for $44 billion in 2022.

The regulator later took a separate legal action to recover the fine. On Thursday, Judge Michael Wheelahan raised the payout to A$650,000 and ordered X to pay another A$100,000 to cover some of the regulator's legal ​costs.

The resolution ties up ​a loose end ⁠for the company which earlier this year was folded into Musk's sprawling technology conglomerate SpaceX ahead of a planned trillion-dollar ​initial public offering within weeks.

X's lawyer Perry Herzfeld said the dispute ​boiled down ⁠to "historic issues relating to the timeliness of provision of information".

The contravening conduct took place during a "period of change and transition for the company", he told the court.

Tran, for ⁠eSafety, ​acknowledged there was no loss resulting from X's ​actions but said that "not providing information when requested by a regulator impedes a regulator when doing her ​work". 

Recommended For You

Follow Us on Social Media