A new statutory tort of invasion of privacy is born in Australia

Today, Australia welcomed into the world a new statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy.

It arrived with little fanfare from the media or social media platforms but like any new arrival it deserves to be celebrated. The right to privacy is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, and the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the introduction of the statutory tort back in 2008 and again in 2014. It adopts a number of principles established in the UK and European privacy laws, as well as the right to seek injunctive relief and the right to sue over false and true privacy intrusions.

More controversially, it includes a journalist exemption. The journalist exemption was not recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2014 and appears to have been introduced due to last minute lobbying by the media. This is a key provision of the act and will be an important provision in the development of the statutory tort of invasion of privacy in Australia.

Importantly, the newspaper exemption only applies to established media and accredited journalists, so citizen bloggers and social media platforms beware. It also only applies to news, current affairs or opinion on news and current affairs.

What constitutes news for the purpose of a claim will need to be determined by the judge tasked with applying the new law. An article about matters of local and world news, or an exposé of wrongdoing, will clearly qualify as a news item, but magazines and online media which trade in tittle-tattle of the rich and famous, or of those associated with them, should watch out. The days of publishing gossip about who is dating who, where they live, their emotional state, medical information or where the children go to school are in my opinion going to be off limits.

Who will be right will be a matter for the courts to decide. Watch this space.

Trump saves TikTok: Influencing the influencers

President Trump will reverse the TikTok ban within hours of being sworn in as President of the United States, as he promises to find a solution for the 170 million TikTok users in the United States (US). The US ban officially came into force at midnight on 19 January 2025.

The US, and President Trump’s ‘new best friend’ Elon Musk, know a lot about the power of social media, but can we really expect TikTok to sell to a US company? The US played a game of chicken with TikTok and it didn’t flinch – shutting its US site down, rather than handing over control. With the potential of a foreign adversary having access to its population, and the mass market data TikTok controls, the US would prefer to trust one of its own with such power.

Social media is a powerful tool for influencing its users, and it is clear that the US would prefer to keep control of its influencers rather than allow the Chinese to wield such influence. The TikTok ban has highlighted a much bigger issue, which is the power of social media and mass market data sets. Can we trust social media platforms with such data, irrespective of where they are based? The need for proper regulation and governance is clear and this must be addressed. Even in the land of the free, who is guarding the gatekeepers?

Meta to end third party fact checking

Mark Zuckerberg‘s announcement that Meta will end its third party fact checking programme is the latest threat to the integrity of online data.

We live in a world where misinformation can spread quickly, and where bots and targeted posts can be used to push false stories. The harm is greater when large parts of society now obtain their news solely from social media and chat groups, and when algorithms push “stories for you” to specific user groups entrenching beliefs, and polarising positions. This is the same no matter which side of a debate you are on.

Meta says it has programmes in place to spot misinformation, and it will rely on its own community to moderate content, but the potential for misuse is huge, and the need to guard against misinformation is greater than ever. If we are being generous perhaps Zuckerberg felt like King Canute, unable to stem the tide of misinformation flooding the beach.

This latest development highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with misinformation on social media. This can include calling out false claims, enforcing social media terms of use, which prevents the posting of harmful and unlawful content, or taking action through the courts.

All of this is turbo charged by AI which harnesses its data from the net, so misinformation can not be left unchecked. Apple has faced calls to withdraw its AI feature that has been pushing out inaccurate summaries of BBC content to its latest AI enabled iPhones.

There is of course an old fashioned technology that is fact checked, and that is held accountable through editorial and legal processes. It is found with traditional newspapers and broadcasters. If we can respect proper journalism with accuracy at its core it will benefit us all.