Technology2 min
Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok Push Back on Australia's Duty of Care Bill
The four platforms back the goal of safer apps but warn that the proposed law hands regulators and ministers too much control.
Four of the biggest names in social media have told Australian lawmakers that a proposed online safety law goes too far. Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok each filed submissions to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, and none of them gave it a clean endorsement.
The bill would require platforms to spot foreseeable risks to users and take reasonable steps to prevent harm, building safety into their products rather than cleaning up problems afterward. Companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to AU$100 million, roughly US$69 million. The platforms say they share the goal. Their objections center on how the rules would be written and who would write them.
TikTok was the bluntest. It said it understood the bill's aim of improving online safety, but argued that, as drafted, the legislation would not achieve that aim.
Meta, the largest of the group, takes a more diplomatic route. It supports a duty of care framework in principle, but warns that leaving detailed requirements to delegated legislation and ministerial decisions could mean weak oversight, less transparency and confusion about what compliance actually looks like. Critics might read that as a request for lighter outside supervision, since Meta argues it already has strong child-safety systems.
Google is the most enthusiastic of the four about a statutory duty of care, calling it a major upgrade to Australia's Online Safety Act. Its concerns are sharper on the details. It wants a minister barred from unilaterally changing service design or expanding the under-16 social media minimum age rules, and it wants guardrails on regulator powers. It also argues that private messaging and file-storage services should be exempt from age assurance, that low-risk enterprise tools should be carved out, and that the definition of content harmful to children should be a clear, closed list.
Why does this matter to everyday users? The fight is really about who decides what a safe app looks like. If lawmakers and regulators hold the pen, rules could tighten quickly and apply broadly. If companies keep more say, enforcement could become slower and harder to check. Australia's approach is being watched closely by other governments weighing similar laws, so the committee's next steps will shape more than one country's internet. The full submissions are available at Biometric Update.
