Sydney Mother Wins Court Battle With eSafety Commissioner Over ‘Queer Club’ Post

A Sydney mother has won a legal battle against Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant after it attempted to have a social media post complaining about a school “queer club” removed.

The full bench of the Federal Court dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal, which hinged not so much on the content of the post, but whether “informal” takedown alerts were still subject to judicial review if they have real-world consequences.

The case centres on a 2024 post by Celine Baumgarten, who criticised a Victorian primary school’s “queer club” for students in Years 3–6.

In the post, she described the initiative as “foul” and identified a teacher involved in running the program.

Although eSafety determined the post did not meet the threshold for a formal removal notice under the Online Safety Act 2021, the agency issued an “informal” alert to social media provider X, which led to the post being geo-blocked in Australia.

Under the Online Safety Act, the eSafety Commissioner can alert online platforms about content that may breach terms of service or online safety rules in two ways—a formal notice, which triggers legal compliance obligations and can be challenged in court, or an informal notice, which is more casual and carries no formal requirement for a platform to act.

Baumgarten challenged the alert at the Administrative Review Tribunal, which found in her favour.

The Commissioner appealed to the Federal Court.

The use of informal takedown notices have been a point of contention in other legal challenges, where parties have complained about their use.

In dismissing the current appeal, the court found that the substance and practical effect of such notices, rather than a label that reads, “informal,” determined whether it was open to review.

It held that the Commissioner cannot avoid judicial scrutiny simply by describing a notice as “informal.”

However, the judgment does not prevent the Commissioner from pursuing formal action in the future, provided such action can be challenged in court.

The Commissioner’s appeal was dismissed, and Baumgarten’s post remains accessible.

eSafety Responds

An eSafety spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the Commissioner acknowledged the court’s decision and that, in the circumstances of this case, alerting a platform about a potential breach of terms constituted a reviewable action.

“Platforms often have material that may breach their terms of service drawn to their attention informally by a range of parties, rather than by formal statutory notifications, and it reduces regulatory burden on service providers compared to formal processes,” the spokesperson said.

The office said it was considering the court’s decision and was unable to provide further comment at this time.