By asahifile 
Elon Musk’s X Faces Uphill Battle Over Child Safety Fine in Australia
Elon Musk’s social media platform X, previously known as Twitter, is under scrutiny after it was upheld a substantial fine of approximately $400,000 by Australia’s eSafety Commission. This fine arises from X’s inadequate response to inquiries regarding its measures against child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on the platform.
The ruling followed a brief yet significant legal debate where X attempted to avoid liability by arguing that since it had merged Twitter into X Corp, it bore no obligation to comply with an Online Safety Act notification issued to Twitter. In essence, X argued that the entity that received the notice—the now-dissolved Twitter—should not impose responsibilities on the newly formed X Corp.
However, Judge Michael Wheelahan dismissed this argument. He stated that under Nevada law, the merger meant that Twitter’s legal responsibilities transferred to X Corp. The judge highlighted the evidence presented by X’s expert on commercial law, Scott Bogatz, as lacking depth and failing to address crucial aspects of the merger law, specifically regarding non-financial liabilities.
The judge’s analysis revealed that the Nevada merger law encompasses all forms of liabilities, including non-monetary obligations such as compliance with regulatory notices. With this ruling, X must not only pay the fine but also face potential civil penalties that could surpass $530,000 as the commission continues its investigation into further non-compliance.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant condemned X’s attempts to evade accountability and reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to enforcing compliance among all tech companies regarding child safety measures. The ruling follows a series of missed inquiries and inadequate responses from X concerning how it addresses CSAM on its platform.
X’s drawn-out legal struggle is likely to exacerbate its financial burdens, pushing the total cost of this compliance challenge to escalate already. The continual oversight by Australian authorities means that the company must now navigate more stringent scrutiny regarding its child safety protocols moving forward.
In summary, X’s legal maneuvering to escape regulatory obligations has been firmly rebuffed, and the implications of this ruling extend beyond mere financial penalties, potentially setting a precedent that could affect how global tech companies address compliance with international regulations.