The Massacre Videos Australia Says Telegram Left Online
On July 30, Australia’s online safety regulator took Telegram to Federal Court, alleging the app failed to detect and remove videos of the Christchurch and Buffalo mass shootings and Islamic State beheadings — some of it left up for nearly three months. The civil action, which could bring penalties of about 54.6 million Australian dollars, landed a day after Russia charged Telegram’s founder with aiding terrorism, leaving the platform fighting on two fronts at once.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, filed civil penalty proceedings against the messaging app Telegram in the Federal Court on July 30, alleging it failed to detect and remove known pro-terror material from its platform, The Associated Press reported. The regulator said the action followed a year-long investigation, according to Bloomberg, and it arrived a day after Russia’s security service announced terrorism charges against Telegram’s founder in an unrelated case.
A lawsuit against the platform, not the people
The proceedings target Telegram under Australia’s Online Safety Act, the 2021 law that requires technology platforms to work to keep illegal and pro-terrorism material off their networks, The Associated Press reported. Telegram could face a fine of up to 54.6 million Australian dollars, about 38 million U.S. dollars, if the Federal Court finds it breached its obligations, according to the AP. The eSafety Commissioner had begun urging Telegram to comply with its own policies in March 2024, but the regulator said the platform had been non-responsive for months before the case was filed, the AP reported.
The content the regulator named
The case centers on some of the most notorious extremist attacks of recent years. eSafety alleges Telegram failed to detect the live-streamed footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings and the May 2022 Buffalo supermarket attack — both carried out by avowed white supremacists — along with videos of Islamic State beheadings, The Associated Press reported. The regulator says the Christchurch and Buffalo videos remained accessible on the app for nearly three months after being uploaded, and were not caught by the platform before users flagged them, according to Bloomberg. Inman Grant said the app had allowed a permissive environment in which extremist material was easy to find, content she said served only to desensitise, normalise and, at times, radicalise those who encountered it, the eSafety Commissioner said in announcing the action.
Telegram’s defense
Telegram rejected the allegations. A company spokesperson said its anti-terrorism efforts were extensive and well documented, adding, “We reject these allegations and will contest them in court,” The Associated Press reported. The company, which is based in the United Arab Emirates and says it has about a billion users worldwide, has said it uses user reports and proactive monitoring to identify unlawful content and that it blocked more than 150,000 terrorist-related communities in 2026, according to the AP.
Charged in Moscow, sued in Sydney
The Australian case landed a day after a very different legal front opened against the platform. On July 29, Russia’s Federal Security Service charged Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, with “aiding terrorism” and issued an international arrest warrant for him, Al Jazeera reported. The FSB said Telegram had failed to take down “channels, chats and bots” that it alleged were used by “Ukrainian special services and by terrorist and extremist organisations” to prepare attacks inside Russia, according to Al Jazeera. Durov, 41, who holds French and Emirati citizenship and lives in Dubai, left Russia in 2014 after refusing government demands to shut opposition communities on a platform he previously ran, CBS News reported. Telegram’s official account on X answered the arrest warrant by posting a photograph of Durov raising his middle finger, Al Jazeera reported. The two cases pull in opposite directions — one government says the app leaves extremist content up too long, another says it would not take content down — but together they place a familiar question at the center of the courtroom: who is accountable when the worst of the internet is allowed to stay online.