Australia Takes Telegram to Court Over Pro-Terror Content
World · Technology
Key Facts
—Legal action. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has begun Federal Court proceedings against Telegram for allegedly failing to remove pro-terror and violent extremist content.
—Maximum penalty. The platform faces civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million (about US$38 million) under the Online Safety Act.
—Content alleged. The case involves videos of terrorist executions, the Christchurch mosque attack, and Islamic State beheadings that remained online for weeks.
—Global pattern. The action comes as Russian investigators are expected to bring terrorism-related charges against Telegram founder Pavel Durov, according to Russian state media.
—Africa relevance. The case offers a regulatory model for African states grappling with extremist networks using encrypted platforms and crypto fundraising.
Australia has launched Federal Court action against Telegram over alleged systemic failures to remove pro-terror content, exposing the encrypted messaging platform to penalties of up to A$54.6 million and signalling a new phase in the global struggle to govern digital spaces where extremism, money, and geopolitics converge.
What Australia alleges about Telegram pro-terror content
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, commenced civil enforcement action in the Federal Court against Telegram under the Online Safety Act 2021. The regulator alleges the platform breached the Unlawful Material Standard by failing to remove and disrupt terrorist and violent extremist content.
The case centres on videos of terrorist executions and mass shootings, including material linked to the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack and the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting. eSafety claims some of this content remained accessible for weeks to almost three months after being reported by Australian users.
The regulator also alleges Telegram failed to shut down the accounts, channels, or groups distributing the material. It further claims the platform did not detect known terrorist content, including widely circulated digital fingerprints of the Christchurch and Buffalo videos.
The enforcement timeline and financial stakes
This Federal Court case builds on a multi-year enforcement trajectory. In March 2024, eSafety issued legally enforceable transparency notices to Telegram and five other platforms, compelling them to detail measures against terrorist and child sexual exploitation material.
Telegram did not respond until 13 October, more than five months late. In February 2025, eSafety issued an infringement notice of A$957,780 (about US$600,000) for that delay.
The current court action is the first Federal Court enforcement under Australia’s new Unlawful Material Codes and Standards. The maximum penalty the court can impose is A$54.6 million, and the Commissioner has publicly noted she can petition the court to seek a ban on the service in Australia if non-compliance continues.
Live Market IntelligenceCrypto — Live Market Board
Rio Times · Live Market Intelligence
Crypto — Live Market Board
-0.26%
| Instrument | Last | Change | YoY | Prev. | High | Low | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC | 63,384 | -0.26% | -47.24% | 63,552 | 64,346 | 63,305 | 22,774,743,040 |
| ETH | 1,886 | +0.26% | -58.90% | 1,881 | 1,920 | 1,879 | 7,916,475,392 |
| SOL | 75.89 | -0.40% | -60.44% | 76.20 | 76.99 | 75.39 | 1,473,821,056 |
| XRP | 1.01 | -1.15% | -69.07% | 1.02 | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1,144,044,416 |
| BNB | 609.60 | -1.12% | -26.81% | 616.50 | 619.30 | 609.23 | 1,266,706,432 |
| ADA | 0.18 | -1.98% | -78.22% | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 238,085,632 |
| DOGE | 0.07 | -1.56% | -70.00% | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 553,256,192 |
| AVAX | 6.38 | +1.04% | -74.11% | 6.32 | 6.42 | 6.21 | 248,470,560 |
| LINK | 8.77 | -0.06% | -62.73% | 8.77 | 8.87 | 8.68 | 317,054,880 |
| DOT | 0.78 | -0.75% | -81.11% | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 43,490,492 |
| LTC | 45.08 | -0.85% | -65.45% | 45.47 | 45.59 | 44.98 | 143,727,712 |
| BCH | 213.85 | +0.10% | -65.44% | 213.64 | 215.69 | 212.54 | 137,956,688 |
| TRX | 0.34 | +0.28% | -4.73% | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 436,576,064 |
| XLM | 0.16 | -1.33% | -64.46% | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 89,559,864 |
| HBAR | 0.07 | -0.53% | -74.67% | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 22,546,186 |
| NEAR | 1.65 | +2.42% | -40.55% | 1.62 | 1.68 | 1.61 | 187,591,264 |
| ATOM | 1.40 | -2.36% | -70.15% | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.40 | 18,626,964 |
| AAVE | 89.06 | +0.93% | -72.33% | 88.24 | 90.20 | 88.19 | 129,099,704 |
How extremist networks use Telegram for recruitment and money
Australian and international assessments identify Telegram as a central platform for extremist propaganda and fundraising. The eSafety Commissioner has described it as the messaging app most used by violent extremist groups to radicalise and recruit.
The far-right “Terrorgram” network operates primarily via Telegram channels, promoting white supremacy and racially motivated violence. Australia has imposed counter-terrorism financing sanctions on Terrorgram, making it a criminal offence to deal with its assets, with penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment.
In October 2023, Australia’s financial intelligence agency alerted federal police to Telegram channels soliciting cryptocurrency donations for Hamas. Research shows extremist channels regularly share wallet addresses for bitcoin, monero, and ethereum to bypass traditional banking controls.
The great-power contest over Telegram and digital sovereignty
Australia’s case unfolded almost simultaneously with Russian legal action against Telegram founder Pavel Durov. Russian authorities announced they were seeking Durov’s arrest, alleging complicity in terrorism by allowing the app to be used for recruitment by Ukraine’s security services.
The Australian action came as Russian state media reported expected charges against Durov, highlighting parallel but ideologically opposed state pressures on the same platform. French authorities arrested Durov at Paris–Le Bourget Airport on 24 August 2024 and charged him days later over criminal activity on Telegram; that investigation remains open.
Durov holds French and UAE passports, and Telegram is based in Dubai, placing it outside the direct jurisdiction of both Russia and the EU. This multi-jurisdictional status allows the platform to resist some state demands while leaving Durov personally vulnerable to arrest when travelling.
What the Telegram pro-terror content case means for Africa
The Australian litigation speaks directly to dynamics facing African states and markets. Many African governments confront growing militant networks across the Sahel, Al-Shabaab in the east, and ISIS affiliates that use Telegram and similar platforms for propaganda and recruitment.
Australia’s Online Safety Act and eSafety’s investigative powers provide a reference model for African regulators debating how to manage cross-border platforms without local licences or data centres. The shift to sanctioning online-only terrorist networks under counter-terrorism financing rules offers a legal pathway to target digital nodes rather than only traditional insurgent groups, a theme explored in our pillar Africa: The New Scramble.
African digital policy increasingly sits between Chinese surveillance models, European rights-based regulation, and U.S. market-driven platforms. Telegram, with its Russian roots and Dubai base, adds another non-Western digital actor into African information ecosystems, with Western democracies now actively trying to reshape its governance through law and sanctions.
Connected Coverage
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Australia alleging against Telegram?
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner alleges Telegram failed to remove pro-terror and violent extremist content, including videos of terrorist executions and material linked to the Christchurch and Buffalo attacks. The regulator claims some content remained accessible for weeks to almost three months after being reported, and that Telegram did not shut down the accounts or channels distributing it.
What penalty does Telegram face in Australia?
The Federal Court can impose civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million (about US$38 million) for alleged breaches of the Online Safety Act. The eSafety Commissioner has also noted she can petition the court to seek a ban on the service in Australia if non-compliance continues.
Why does this case matter for African countries?
Many African states face extremist networks that use Telegram for propaganda, recruitment, and crypto-based fundraising. Australia’s regulatory model and its use of counter-terrorism financing sanctions against online-only networks offer a legal pathway for African regulators seeking to govern cross-border platforms without local offices or data centres.
Sources
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times