US Warns Australia’s Digital Duty of Care Law Risks ‘Viewpoint-Based Censorship’

The United States has formally warned Australia its proposed digital duty of care laws risk becoming a tool for censorship.

In response to the Australian government’s Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, the U.S. government raised “serious concerns” about aspects of the legislation relating to speech and platform design.

“A framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of ‘harm’ risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship, as platforms will be incentivized to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties,” a statement published by the U.S. Embassy read.

The U.S. government explained that preserving free, open internet and protecting freedom of expression online were top priorities for the Trump administration.

It also asked Canberra to clarify how “harm” and “risks” would be determined, and by whom.

“If Australia compels platforms to aggressively filter content in algorithmic feeds to satisfy a government mandate, and such filtering draws in protected speech, the effect on a disfavored speaker or media source’s reach would not be meaningfully different than outright removal,” the U.S government said.

“The U.S. government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship.”

Australia’s draft laws would require social media platforms to let users aged 16 and over choose between an algorithmically personalised feed and a chronological feed under an initiative labelled “My Feed, My Way.”

Failure to comply with the new regime will attract penalties of up to $109.2 million (US$77.6 million), which will be enforced by Australia’s online watchdog, the eSafety Commissioner.

The U.S. government also noted that most affected platforms were headquartered in the United States and raised concerns about the “significant effects beyond Australian borders” that a duty-of-care regime could have.

“We ask that Australia withdraw any plans to mandate that platforms algorithmically suppress content based on ambiguous government-defined safety criteria,” it said.

“The U.S. government has made clear its opposition to foreign measures that result in extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online.”

Assistant Treasurer Defends Digital Duty of Care Bill

Meanwhile, Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino defended the legislation, saying it was about choice, not censorship.

He said the changes targeted “addictive algorithms” that could cause harm, while Australians would retain the right to opt out of algorithmic recommendations.

When asked whether Australia would exempt U.S. platforms, Mulino said the proposed laws would apply regardless of their country of origin.

“I would expect … that we would apply this to digital platforms no matter where their origin is,” he told ABC Radio.

“That’s the right position to take when it comes to regulating technology in a way that is achieving the right policy outcomes, but that is also consistent with all of our international obligations.”