Australia's 'Stage 2' Defamation Reforms Take Effect, Rewriting When Online Platforms Are Liable for Other People's Posts

Australia has begun rolling out the most significant rewrite of its defamation law since the social-media age arrived, and the changes go to the heart of when a website, a search engine, or even an ordinary person running a Facebook page can be sued for someone else's words. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory switched on the reforms on 1 July 2024, and Victoria followed on 11 September 2024.

These changes are known as the Stage 2 reforms, or more formally the Part A amendments to the Model Defamation Provisions dealing with the liability of internet intermediaries for third-party content. In New South Wales they were carried by the Defamation Amendment Act 2023 (NSW) No 36. They are the second wave of a national project to modernise defamation law, following the Stage 1 'serious harm' changes that took effect in 2021.

Information last verified on June 20, 2026.

The Problem the Reforms Set Out to Solve

The trigger for this round of reform was a single High Court decision. In Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, handed down on 8 September 2021, a majority of the High Court of Australia held that media companies that ran public Facebook pages were 'publishers' of the defamatory comments left by third-party users on those pages.

The court reasoned that by creating a public page and posting content that invited engagement, the companies had facilitated and encouraged the comments, which was enough to make them publishers. Defamation in Australia is a tort of strict liability, so it did not matter that the companies had not seen the comments or intended to convey them.

Voller sent a jolt through anyone who hosts third-party content online. The decision logically reached far beyond large media companies, potentially capturing a school parent running a community group or a sporting club moderating a fan page. The Stage 2 reforms are the legislative response, an attempt to draw clearer lines around who is liable and how an innocent host can protect itself.

This is the same broad area of law explained in our guide to Australia's defamation laws, which sets out the uniform framework that all the states and territories share.

What the Stage 2 Reforms Actually Do

The Part A amendments introduce three main mechanisms into the amended Defamation Act 2005, working alongside the existing innocent-dissemination protections.

First, there are conditional statutory exemptions for a narrow group of intermediaries. The clearest example is a search engine provider, which under the new section 10D framework is exempt from liability for defamatory matter that appears in its organic search results, meaning the ordinary, non-sponsored results an algorithm returns. The exemption does not extend to sponsored results.

Second, there is a new defence in section 31A for digital intermediaries that fall outside those exemptions, such as a forum host or a community message board. To rely on it, the intermediary must maintain an accessible complaints mechanism. Once it receives a written complaint that meets the statutory requirements, it has seven days to take reasonable access-prevention steps, such as removing or blocking the matter complained of. Miss the window without good reason, and the defence can be lost.

Third, the reforms add a new section 39A court power. Where a court has reached a final judgment or granted an injunction, it can order a digital intermediary that was never a party to the proceedings to take access-prevention steps against the defamatory matter. That gives plaintiffs a route to get content taken down even where the platform itself was not sued.

The NSW Government framed the package as protecting ordinary people 'caught up in digital defamation,' citing examples such as a parent managing a school discussion page or a club member hosting a forum on Facebook. The same media release noted a separate change extending absolute privilege to reports made to police, including reports of sexual assault.

How This Connects to the 2021 'Serious Harm' Change

The Stage 2 reforms do not stand alone. They sit on top of the Stage 1 changes that commenced on 1 July 2021, the most important of which was a new 'serious harm' element of the cause of action, found in section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005.

Under section 10A, it is now an element of a defamation claim that the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation. For an excluded corporation, harm is not serious unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. A judicial officer, not a jury, decides whether that threshold is met, and the question can be determined before trial.

That threshold abolished the old common-law presumption that defamatory words are automatically damaging. The two reform stages work together. Serious harm screens out trivial claims at the front door, while the intermediary rules sort out who can be held responsible when a claim does proceed.

For readers comparing systems, the Australian serious-harm gateway echoes thresholds found in other common-law countries and stands in contrast to the heavier burdens placed on plaintiffs under United States defamation law, where constitutional free-speech protections raise the bar much higher for public figures.

Uniformity Is Fraying

The whole point of the Model Defamation Provisions is that defamation law should be the same across Australia. On 22 September 2023, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General approved the Part A amendments, with participating jurisdictions agreeing to use best endeavours to commence them on 1 July 2024.

That target slipped almost immediately. New South Wales and the ACT commenced on time, Victoria commenced on 11 September 2024, the Northern Territory followed on 11 August 2025, and Queensland and Tasmania came on board later in 2025. But South Australia adopted only part of the package, declining to enact the intermediary exemptions and the new complaints-based defence even in its December 2025 amendments. The result is a patchwork in which the precise rules for online liability can depend on which state or territory's law governs a given publication.

For a platform operating nationally, or for anyone who receives a complaint about content, that fragmentation matters. A well-drafted complaint, and a prompt response, may be assessed differently depending on jurisdiction. Many disputes still begin not with a writ but with a cease and desist letter, and the seven-day clock under the new defence makes the timing of any such demand more consequential than before.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following analysis reflects the views of the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The deeper significance of the Stage 2 reforms is the bargain they strike. Voller exposed an enormous class of accidental publishers, from major mastheads to volunteer moderators, to liability for words they never wrote and often never saw. The new framework does not pretend that exposure away. Instead it offers a deal: maintain a genuine, accessible complaints process and act on valid complaints within seven days, and you can claim a defence. The price of that protection is diligence.

That is a sensible design in principle, because it channels disputes toward fast removal rather than slow, expensive litigation. The seven-day window gives complainants a concrete remedy and gives hosts a clear, achievable standard. The new section 39A power is the backstop, ensuring that content can be taken down even when the platform was not a defendant.

The weak point is uniformity. A national model only works if it is enacted nationally and at the same time, and that has not happened. The states and territories switched the reforms on across more than a year rather than together, and with South Australia only partway in, the very predictability the reforms were meant to deliver is undercut. For the largest platforms, the practical answer is usually to apply the most protective standard everywhere, but for smaller operators the inconsistency is a real burden.

It is also worth being clear about what the reforms do not do. They do not abolish the strict-liability character of Australian defamation, and they do not give a host a free pass. An intermediary that ignores a valid complaint, or that runs sponsored results rather than organic ones, remains exposed. The protection is conditional, and the conditions have teeth.

None of this is legal advice. Defamation procedure varies between Australian jurisdictions and differs sharply from the law in the United States and the United Kingdom. Anyone facing an actual complaint, or considering one, should consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant state or territory.