The United States government has formally objected to Australia’s proposed digital duty-of-care laws, arguing that parts of the plan could lead to what it describes as “extraterritorial censorship of protected speech.” The criticism came through a submission to Australia’s consultation on the draft legislation, which would require major digital platforms to address foreseeable harms and give social media users more control over algorithmic feeds. Washington also urged the Australian government to exclude US-based social media companies from parts of the proposed regime.
Australia unveiled the draft legislation earlier in September as part of its broader online-safety agenda. One of the central measures, called “My Feed, My Way,” would require social media platforms to notify users about their default feed settings and allow them to choose whether personalised algorithmic recommendations are used. Users who opt out would instead see content from accounts and groups they have chosen to follow.
The proposed digital duty of care would also place new responsibilities on online services to identify and reduce risks to users, particularly children. The Australian government has highlighted concerns including pornography, material encouraging eating disorders, misogynistic content, cyberbullying and other forms of serious online harm. Platforms could face penalties exceeding A$100 million for failing to comply with the proposed requirements.
In its submission, the US government said it had “serious concerns” about how concepts such as foreseeable harm would be defined and enforced. It argued that broad or unclear definitions could encourage platforms to remove or demote lawful speech to avoid regulatory penalties. Washington also questioned who would determine whether particular material creates a risk and what appeal mechanisms would be available when platforms or users dispute those decisions.
The US objection goes beyond the algorithm opt-out itself. The submission argues that requirements imposed on globally operated platforms could affect how content is moderated or distributed outside Australia, which it characterises as a potential extraterritorial impact on speech. The administration therefore called for US companies to be exempted from rules that, in its view, could affect protected expression beyond Australian users.
Australia’s government has rejected the characterisation that the proposal is designed to censor online speech. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the policy is intended to give users more control over what appears in their feeds rather than giving the government control over content. The government has also indicated that its approach would apply across platforms rather than providing special treatment based on where a company is headquartered.
The dispute adds an international dimension to Australia’s expanding regulation of large technology platforms. The country has already introduced a minimum-age framework for social media and is now considering broader obligations covering recommender systems, online safety and the design of digital services. The new duty-of-care proposal would significantly expand the responsibilities placed on companies operating social networks, apps, games and other online services.
The algorithm provision is particularly significant because recommendation systems are central to how platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X decide what users see. Australia’s proposal would not eliminate personalised feeds but would require platforms to offer users a meaningful alternative. Government officials have presented that change as a way of shifting some control from platforms back to individuals.
The US intervention also reflects a broader disagreement over how national governments should regulate large American technology companies. Washington has increasingly raised concerns about overseas rules that it believes impose disproportionate obligations on US firms or influence speech beyond national borders. Australia, meanwhile, has argued that global platforms providing services to Australians should comply with Australian safety standards.
The draft legislation has not yet completed the parliamentary process, and its final form could change following consultation and negotiations. Australia’s government has indicated that the legislation is expected to proceed through parliament after feedback is considered, while domestic political parties have raised differing concerns about both user protection and government regulatory powers. The US submission now adds another source of pressure as Australia decides how broadly the digital duty of care should apply and whether foreign-owned platforms should be treated differently from other services.
