Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety, Sarah Henderson, has demanded a full review of the use of mandatory takedown notices by the eSafety Commissioner after a damning court ruling found the regulator was operating outside its powers.
On 18 February 2026, the Full Federal Court ruled in favour of children’s rights activist, Celine Baumgarten, finding the eSafety Commissioner had improperly issued a takedown notice to X seeking to remove a post about a ‘queer club’ at a Melbourne primary school.
In May 2024, Ms Baumgarten, of western Sydney, published a video and comments on X, raising concerns that a teacher at the school was indoctrinating children aged 8-12 about radical gender ideology. She wrote “children should not be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age … This is foul. Leave the kids alone.”
Following a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, that the post sought to “intimidate and harass”, she sent a ‘complaint alert’ to X to remove the post in the name of the ‘Cyber Abuse Team’. This is despite one of her investigators determining the post did not meet the statutory definition of adult cyber-abuse because there was no intention to cause serious harm.
Significantly, it is arguable the Commissioner misled X by making the complaint alert look like a statutory removal notice, even referring to section 7 of the Online Safety Act, which prohibits adult cyber-abuse, as the ‘legal basis’ for the notice.
Ms Baumgarten took her case to the Administrative Review Tribunal which found the eSafety Commissioner was acting outside her statutory powers. The post was then reinstated by X. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner’s argument she was merely sending an informal notice that the post did not comply with X’s terms of service. An appeal by the Commissioner to the Full Federal Court also failed.
“The Albanese government should provide Australians with confidence the eSafety Commissioner is not censoring legitimate debate or free speech,” Senator Henderson said.
“Communications minister Anika Wells must investigate how many removal notices have been issued by the regulator beyond the scope of its powers.”
“While the eSafety Commissioner has updated complaint alerts to make clear a social media platform is not compelled to take any action, I am concerned there has been widespread misuse of the regulator’s powers which have improperly stifled free speech, undermining the integrity of Australia’s online safety laws.”
“I am also concerned the Commission sought to remove this post because it objected to Ms Baumgarten’s views that schools are no place for gender activism.”
During questioning by Senator Henderson at Senate estimates last December, Ms Inman-Grant rejected this suggestion, but provided confusing evidence stating, at one point, Ms Baumgarten was engaging in adult cyber-abuse because she was ‘targeting another person with abuse’.
“Ms Inman-Grant should clarify her evidence to make clear Ms Baumgarten was not engaging in adult cyber-abuse in breach of the Online Safety Act,” Senator Henderson said.
“Anika Wells must also investigate the extent to which the eSafety Commissioner has failed to inform people who are the subject of complaints about their rights of appeal.”
“With excessive government spending of taxpayers’ money such an issue, Australians also deserve to know the total cost of these legal proceedings and how the eSafety Commissioner can justify this expenditure.”
BACKGROUND
Excerpt of evidence to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senate estimates, 2 December 2025:
Senator Henderson: I am just concerned that something of this nature would constitute a matter that would result in you as the eSafety Commissioner demanding that this post be removed.
Ms Inman Grant: We don’t comment on political commentary. Our adult cyber-abuse scheme is a very high threshold, a two-prong test. We have to prove serious intent to harm, and then menacing, harassing and offensive to an ordinary, reasonable person in all circumstances.
Senator Henderson: Are you saying this constituted adult cyber-abuse?
Ms Inman Grant: This is what we assess. When it doesn’t reach that threshold—and only about 6 per cent do—but it violates a company’s terms of service, we will often issue something called an informal complaint alert. In many cases, X Corp in this case, will ask us to use a legal hurdle. I don’t know if you want to continue, Mr Fleming—
Senator Henderson: I understand some of the legal issues, but I want to go to substance of the post. Why did this post, which was about raising concerns about gender activism at a primary school in Melbourne—
Ms Inman Grant : You’re spinning a narrative about what you think it is.
Senator Henderson: Please don’t reflect on me.
Ms Inman Grant : What you are saying is –
….
Senator Henderson: I am just asking you: why was this deemed to be adult cyberabuse, because—
Ms Inman Grant : Because it was targeting another person with abuse.
…..
Senator Henderson: Why was this deemed to be adult cyber-abuse, Commissioner?
Ms Inman Grant : It was deemed to be a contravention of X Corp’s policy.
Mr Fleming : I think we keep coming around to the same issue. We didn’t see it as adult cyberabuse. That’s our assessment: it wasn’t adult cyber-abuse.