On 4 August 2026, the Australian eSafety Commissioner issued a formal removal notice to X concerning a post that linked to a 2024 Substack article by US-based writer Genevieve Gluck.
The article, published on 31 October 2024 on her Women’s Voices Substack, examined publicly available online material posted by an employee of the Australian Medical Association Victoria (AMA Victoria) and questioned the person’s suitability for a professional role in the medical sector.
According to reporting by The Australian, the complaint was made by the AMA Victoria employee who was the subject of the article. eSafety initially assessed the complaint as not meeting the statutory threshold for adult cyber abuse. The complainant subsequently appealed that assessment to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) and provided additional material. eSafety then reconsidered the matter and issued a formal removal notice to X. The notice reportedly carries potential civil penalties of approximately $910,000 if X does not comply.
The matter raises questions about how the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) operates when online material concerns an identifiable adult and involves criticism or commentary on matters of public interest. It also follows recent legal challenges involving the eSafety Commissioner’s use of the adult cyber-abuse provisions.
How the Online Safety Act Works
The Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) received Royal Assent on 23 July 2021. Its main provisions commenced on 23 January 2022, replacing and expanding the earlier Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015. Its objects are to improve and promote online safety for Australians.
The Act does not create a single general power to remove material simply because it is considered harmful or offensive. Instead, it establishes several distinct schemes, each with its own definitions and thresholds. These include schemes dealing with:
- cyber-bullying of children;
- non-consensual sharing of intimate images;
- adult cyber abuse;
- Class 1 and Class 2 content;
- Basic Online Safety Expectations; and
- social media minimum-age rules.
The provision most relevant to the current matter is the adult cyber-abuse scheme in Part 7.
What Constitutes Adult Cyber Abuse?
Under section 7, material is cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult only if the statutory requirements are satisfied. These include:
- an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that it is likely the material was intended to have the effect of causing serious harm to a particular Australian adult; and
- an ordinary reasonable person in the position of that adult would regard the material, in all the circumstances, as menacing, harassing or offensive.
These requirements operate together.
“Serious harm” is defined in section 5 as serious physical harm or serious harm to a person’s mental health, whether temporary or permanent. It includes serious psychological harm and serious distress, but expressly excludes ordinary emotional reactions such as distress, grief, fear or anger. Offence or upset alone is not sufficient to establish serious harm under the statutory definition.
Section 8 requires a contextual assessment of whether material is offensive. Among the matters relevant to that assessment are the material’s general character, any medical, legal or scientific qualities, and any literary, artistic or educational merit.
Formal Notices and Informal Communications
Where the statutory test is met, the Commissioner may issue formal removal notices under Part 7. These notices impose legal obligations on their recipients, and non-compliance can attract civil penalties.
This is distinct from informal communications in which eSafety draws material to a platform’s attention for consideration under the platform’s own terms of service. eSafety has clarified that such complaint notifications are not legal notices and do not legally require a platform to take particular action. The distinction became central to the Celine Baumgarten litigation.
The legal character of a particular communication therefore matters when considering the obligations imposed on an online service and the avenues of review available.
How the Scheme Has Operated in Practice
eSafety’s 2024–25 Annual Report records more than 3,600 adult cyber-abuse complaints. Where the office alerted service providers, material was removed in 78% of cases.
These figures show that the adult cyber-abuse scheme operates through a range of regulatory responses. Formal removal notices are only one of the mechanisms available. A complaint does not automatically result in a formal statutory removal notice. The source of the Commissioner’s authority, the obligations imposed on the recipient, and the available avenues of review all depend on the particular type of action taken.
Recent Cases Involving Sex and Gender-Related Commentary
The current case follows two recent cases involving commentary on sex and gender-related issues, in which aspects of the eSafety Commissioner’s actions were challenged.
1. Billboard Chris — 2025
In 2024, Canadian campaigner Chris Elston, commonly known as “Billboard Chris”, posted on X about the appointment of Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization panel. The eSafety Commissioner issued a formal removal notice in relation to the post under the adult cyber-abuse provisions.
Elston and X challenged the decision. In July 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal set the notice aside, finding that the necessary intention to cause serious harm had not been established. The decision shows that material may be controversial or offensive without meeting the full statutory test for adult cyber abuse.
2. Celine Baumgarten — 2024–2026
In 2024, Celine Baumgarten posted on X about a “Queer Club” at a Victorian primary school. eSafety’s own assessment found that the material did not meet the adult cyber-abuse threshold. An informal complaint alert was nevertheless sent to X, which subsequently restricted access to the post in Australia.
The legal status of that informal communication was challenged. On 18 February 2026, the Full Federal Court dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal. The case turned on the reviewability of the Commissioner’s decision-making and communications with the platform, rather than solely the content of the original post.
Why the Statutory Distinction Matters
The Online Safety Act does not give the Commissioner a general power to remove material simply because it is controversial, offensive or distressing. For adult cyber abuse, the requirements in section 7 must both be satisfied.
Any assessment of a removal notice therefore requires careful attention to:
- the precise material concerned;
- the person said to be the target;
- the evidence concerning serious harm;
- the likely intended effect of the material;
- whether the material is menacing, harassing or offensive in all the circumstances;
- the contextual considerations in section 8;
- the particular power being exercised; and
- the procedural and review mechanisms available under the Act.
The distinction between formal statutory notices and other communications with platforms is also legally significant. The label attached to a communication does not necessarily determine its legal character; its statutory basis, content and practical effect may all be relevant.
A Developing Area of Regulation
Recent litigation has demonstrated that the eSafety Commissioner’s exercise of powers under the Online Safety Act can be examined by independent tribunals and courts. The Baumgarten proceedings, in particular, provide an important example of judicial scrutiny of the Commissioner’s interactions with online platforms.
The current matter involving Genevieve Gluck’s Substack article provides another opportunity to examine how these statutory powers operate in practice. Its significance will depend on how the adult cyber-abuse threshold is interpreted and applied where online material concerns contested questions of sex, gender, medicine and professional conduct.
Women Speak Australia will continue to follow developments in this matter and in the broader operation of Australia’s online-safety laws.