Greens gear up for fight with Labor as Sarah Hanson-Young pushes to strengthen laws to rein in big tech

The Greens want Labor’s proposed digital duty of care laws to go much further. Their central demand is a private right of action, allowing people harmed online to take platforms to court and seek compensation. They also want the laws to address platforms’ addictive nature more directly.

The Greens are seeking fines based on a percentage of a company’s global revenue, rather than fixed amounts. They argue this would make penalties large enough to influence technology giants. They also say enforcement should not rest with the eSafety commissioner alone, because individuals and communities should be able to act.

The Coalition opposes the duty of care plan, giving the Greens leverage in negotiations. Labor wants the laws introduced into parliament and has promised to work constructively with the Greens. The final package may therefore change as both sides bargain over safety, penalties and legal rights.

A digital duty of care is a proposed legal obligation for online services to protect users from defined forms of harm. It would shift safety from a voluntary promise to a requirement backed by regulation. The aim is to make platforms take responsibility for risks created or amplified by their services.

Under Labor’s plan, popular platforms, online games, apps and AI chatbots would need to protect users from pornography, eating disorder content, misogynistic content, crime-glorifying material, dangerous stunts, serious distress, abuse and bullying. Operators would also have to document the measures they take.

The eSafety commissioner could issue removal notices to companies that fail to respond to harmful material. Users over 16 would receive tools to turn off algorithm-driven content. Communications minister Anika Wells said platforms had had 15 years to adopt safety by design, but legislation would now require it.

The proposed penalties could exceed A$100m for platforms that fail to protect users from harm. That figure signals that Labor wants breaches to carry serious financial consequences, rather than being treated as minor compliance issues. The exact final penalty structure remains part of the political negotiation.

The Greens argue fixed fines may not change the behaviour of technology giants. Their alternative is to calculate penalties as a percentage of a corporation’s global revenue. A revenue-linked penalty would connect the punishment to the company’s worldwide financial scale, rather than applying one standard amount to businesses of very different sizes.

Labor has announced fines of more than A$100m, but the Greens say the proposed amounts are too small. They want serious fines and compensation claims to pressure companies into proactively creating safer environments. The Coalition opposes the broader duty of care plan, strengthening the Greens’ bargaining position.

The proposed laws divide responsibility among the regulator, platforms and users. The eSafety commissioner would oversee compliance and have power to issue removal notices. Labor’s plan would also require companies to document how they address online harms, creating a record of their safety measures.

Platforms, games, apps and AI chatbots would need to protect users from listed risks. These include pornography, eating disorder content, misogynistic material, crime-glorifying content, dangerous stunts, abuse, bullying and content causing serious distress. Companies would be expected to embed safety by design rather than rely on voluntary action.

Users over 16 would receive new tools to turn off algorithm-driven content. The Greens want a further role for users: a private right of action. That would let people harmed online take companies to court and seek compensation. The Greens say enforcement should not be left to the regulator alone.

If users could sue platforms for online harm, enforcement would no longer depend only on the eSafety commissioner. People who believed a service had harmed them could bring a case and ask a court for financial compensation. This would give individuals a direct legal route under the proposed system.

The key mechanism would be a private right of action. Instead of waiting for a regulator to issue a notice or penalty, an affected person could challenge the company through the courts. Successful claims could require compensation for damage done. The article does not specify how claims would be proved or assessed.

The Greens say this possibility would strengthen incentives for platforms to improve safety and address addictive design. It could also make companies face greater legal and financial exposure. Whether the right is included depends on negotiations, as Labor prepares the duty of care laws for parliament and the Greens seek changes.

Tying fines to global revenue would make penalties reflect a company’s worldwide financial size. The Greens argue that fixed amounts may be too small to change the behaviour of technology giants. A percentage-based penalty would rise as the company’s global revenue rises, making the consequence harder to dismiss as a routine business cost.

The mechanism is direct: regulators would calculate a fine from the corporation’s global revenue rather than apply one set amount. The Greens say this would create a serious financial threat alongside compensation claims. That threat could encourage companies to prevent harm and provide safer environments proactively.

Labor has proposed fines of more than A$100m, but the Greens consider them insufficient. They are pushing for a stronger model while negotiating support for the government’s bills. The article does not state what percentage the Greens seek, so the size of any revenue-based penalty remains unsettled.

Algorithms are sets of rules that process information about a user’s activity and use it to select or recommend content. In online services, they can shape what appears in a feed, game or app. This matters because repeated recommendations can keep people engaged and expose them to more of the same material.

For example, a platform may use a person’s previous interactions to decide which posts or videos appear next. If the system continually serves compelling material, the experience may become difficult to stop. The article does not identify the exact signals platforms use, but it says the Greens want stronger action on addictive platform design and users to control algorithm-driven content.

Labor’s proposal would give users over 16 new tools to turn off algorithm-driven content. It would also cover harms such as eating disorder material, misogyny, abuse, bullying and content causing serious distress. The proposed duty would require platforms to address these risks rather than rely on voluntary safety measures.