On 14 October 2025, the Queensland Government introduced the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to modernise the State’s 2005 Act and align it with nationwide reform work.
These reforms implement the nationally agreed Stage 2 Model Defamation Amendment (Digital Intermediaries) Provisions developed through the Council of Attorneys-General.
The intent is to modernise defamation law for the digital age by clarifying liability boundaries, strengthening takedown powers, and improving harmonisation across states to reduce forum shopping and inconsistent outcomes.
The Bill targets online publications and clarifies the responsibility and protections of platforms, page admins and complainants, while boosting court powers to identify posters and take down defamatory content.
It has been referred to a parliamentary committee.
At a glance, the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill provides the following:
- Clear rules for “digital intermediaries” (platforms, hosts, search engines): new statutory exemptions and a bespoke defence if they offer accessible complaints processes and take “access prevention steps.” Early determination of these issues is encouraged.
- More powerful court tools: preliminary discovery to identify anonymous posters; and orders against non-party intermediaries (e.g., platforms not sued in the proceeding) compelling takedown or blocking.
- Stronger absolute privilege: express protection for reports made to police.
- Modernised amends & notice rules: offers to make amends can include access prevention steps; service and notices embrace electronic channels.
- Commencement & harmonisation: starts 7 days after assent; presented as part of nationally coordinated reforms to deter forum shopping.
Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 includes the following amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) to include exemptions for digital intermediaries (proposed ss 10C–10E).
Section 10C: Exemption for digital intermediaries
In the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, a hosting, caching, conduit or storage service is not liable if it proves its role was limited to those functions and it did not initiate publication, select recipients, encourage posting, edit content, or promote the matter. The Bill defines the following:
caching service means an online service whose principal function is to provide automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of content for the purpose of making the onward electronic transmission of the content more efficient for its users.
conduit service means an online service whose principal function is to enable its users to access or use networks or other infrastructure to connect to, or send or receive data by means of, the internet.
storage service means an online service, other than a caching service, whose principal function is to enable its users to store content remotely.
Under proposed section 10C of the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, a hosting, caching, conduit, or storage service will not be liable for defamation if it can prove that its role was purely technical and limited to those functions.
To qualify, the service must show it did not:
- Start or initiate the publication.
- Choose who received the material.
- Encourage users to post it.
- Edit or modify the content; or
- Promote the publication.
The Explanatory Notes of the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill give the following reasons for the proposed amendments for 10C:
- Section 10C is part of a nationally coordinated effort to keep defamation law consistent across states, especially in relation to online content.
- The Bill aims to draw a clearer line between those who actually publish or influence content, and services that simply facilitate its transmission or storage. The exemption is intended for purely passive intermediaries—those whose involvement is limited to hosting, caching, conduit, or storage functions, without further editorial control or interaction with the content.
- This clarity helps reduce disputes over whether a service is a “publisher” under existing defamation law.
- A major driver is that many entities (hosting providers, cloud storage services, ISPs) may currently face risk of defamation claims even though they play no editorial role. The exemption protects them from being dragged into defamation actions when their role was merely technical or passive. By codifying this protection, the Bill seeks to reduce speculative or opportunistic claims.
- The associated section 10E encourages courts to decide, “as early as practicable,” whether a defendant qualifies as an intermediary under s 10C (for example, on pleadings). This helps avoid protracted litigation over intermediary status and reduces wasted costs.
- The Explanatory Notes emphasise that different types of online services (caching, conduit, storage) function differently in the digital ecosystem. By defining these categories and limiting the exemption to narrowly tailored passive roles, the law becomes more precise and avoids overreaching to entities that do more (moderation, editorial control, promotion).
Section 10D: Exemption for search engine providers
A search engine provider is exempt on similar terms, with tailored tests for search functionality. The Bill defines the following:
search engine means a software application or system designed to enable its users to search for content on the internet.
search engine provider, for a search engine, means a person who maintains, or provides users with access to the search functions of, the search engine.
search result means a result generated by a search engine that is limited to identifying a webpage on which content is located by reference to 1 or more of the following— (a) the title of the webpage; (b) a hyperlink to the webpage; (c) an extract from the webpage; (d) an image from the webpage.
Section 10D of the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill provides an exemption from defamation liability for a search engine provider in relation to the publication of search results, including both the listings that appear in the search results and the links to the external websites those results point to.
The exemption applies only if the search engine’s role was limited to providing an automated process by which users generate search results.
The provider must prove that it did not intervene through human editorial actions in generating or curating the results.
The Explanatory Notes also address autocomplete and predictive text features.
If an autocomplete suggestion generates defamatory content, the exemption covers the search results that follow the suggestion, but not the defamatory meaning implied by the suggestion itself.
The act of suggestion is treated separately from the automated production of results.
The scope of the exemption is confined to results that identify a webpage by reference to its title, hyperlink, extract (or snippet), or image.
In other words, standard search results displaying a link, a short excerpt, or an image from the linked page are protected.
The exemption does not apply to sponsored or promoted results that are prioritised because of payment or other benefits provided by third parties.
Paid or commercial placements fall outside the safe harbour of section 10D.
The Explanatory Notes of the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill reference the High Court decision in Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, which held that Google was not a publisher merely by providing a hyperlink to third-party content.
Section 10D is intended to codify that principle in statute.
To support this provision, the Bill introduces definitions for “search engine”, “search engine provider”, and “search result”, which establish the limits of the exemption.
Case Summary: Google LLC v Defteros
In Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, the High Court of Australia allowed the appeal by Google LLC, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had found Google liable for defamation by publishing a hyperlink to an article on The Age’s website that contained defamatory content about George Defteros.
The case centred on whether Google, by providing a hyperlink in its search results, could be considered a publisher of the defamatory content in the linked article.
The High Court concluded that Google was not a publisher of the defamatory content, as the provision of a hyperlink does not constitute participation in the communication of defamatory matter.
The Court reasoned that a hyperlink is merely a tool that directs users to another webpage and does not itself communicate the content of that page.
The Court found that Google’s search engine operates automatically without human intervention and does not evaluate the content of webpages for truthfulness or defamation.
The Court also noted that the principles of publication in defamation law require some act of participation in the communication of defamatory matter, which was not present in Google’s case.
The appeal was allowed.
Section 10E – Early determination of digital intermediary exemptions
Courts should determine intermediary exemptions as early as practicable, including on the pleadings alone if appropriate; they may dismiss proceedings if an exemption is established.
Section 10E directs that issues relating to whether a person qualifies for an exemption under section 10C (or section 10D) should be determined by the court as early as practicable, including by way of pleadings alone if appropriate.
The objective is to allow a defendant to seek summary dismissal of a claim if they satisfy the requirements of being a digital intermediary under the earlier sections, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation when the exemption is clear.
In effect, section 10E is meant to promote procedural efficiency, reducing costs and delay by having courts resolve intermediary status early rather than forcing full trials in borderline cases.
What This Means for Defamation in Queensland
Queensland would codify when platforms/infrastructure providers are not publishers for user content, moving beyond judge-made rules and giving defendants a fast path to knock out claims premised on mere facilitation.
The reforms make clear that platforms were not responsible for what other people did, focusing suits on the actual poster.
Defence for Publications Involving Digital Intermediaries
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill introduces a new defence for digital intermediaries under proposed section 31A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld).
This defence applies to platforms, administrators, and service providers involved in the publication of digital matter created by others.
The Explanatory Notes state that the defence is available if the intermediary had an accessible complaints mechanism in place at the time the publication occurred.
After receiving a written complaint, the intermediary must take reasonable steps to prevent access to the content, such as removing, blocking, or disabling access to the content, within a reasonable period (generally 7 days, or sooner if possible).
The defence also extends to cases where the intermediary took reasonable action before a complaint was made, recognising that proactive moderation or content removal can demonstrate responsibility and good faith.
However, the defence can be defeated by malice.
If the plaintiff proves that the intermediary acted with malice in establishing or operating the online service, the protection will not apply.
The provision is designed to encourage digital intermediaries, such as social media platforms, page administrators, and web service providers, to establish and maintain transparent, accessible processes for handling defamation complaints.
Those who respond promptly and take reasonable steps to prevent further publication can rely on this new statutory defence.
It reflects a balance between protecting intermediaries who act responsibly and ensuring victims still have remedies where defamatory content is published and ignored.
Read our article here on Social Medial Defamation
Preliminary Discovery About Posters of Digital Matter
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill introduces a new power for courts to make preliminary discovery orders in cases involving digital matters.
This provision allows a person intending to bring defamation proceedings to apply to the court for an order requiring another person, such as a digital platform or service provider, to provide information that will help identify or locate the individual who posted the allegedly defamatory content.
The Explanatory Notes state that this measure is intended to assist plaintiffs who cannot proceed because the publisher’s identity is unknown or hidden behind anonymity.
It fills a significant gap in current defamation procedures by giving courts a precise mechanism to identify the identities of online posters before proceedings begin.
Before making an order, the court must consider privacy, safety, and public-interest factors to ensure that disclosure is appropriate in the circumstances.
The notes emphasise that these safeguards are designed to balance a person’s right to protect their reputation with the need to protect individuals’ privacy and safety online.
In short, the Explanatory Notes explain that this amendment provides courts with practical assistance in cases where defamation has occurred online but the responsible person cannot be readily identified.
It allows victims to take effective legal action while ensuring that privacy and safety concerns are properly weighed.
Orders Against Non-Party Intermediaries to Take Down Content
Even if a platform is not a party, courts can order it to take access-prevention steps (e.g., remove or block) where there is a defamation judgment or an injunction (temporary or final) against the publisher.
Intermediaries must be allowed to be heard, but urgent temporary orders can be made. These powers exist whether or not the intermediary could be liable itself.
The Explanatory Notes reference the purpose is to expand the court’s ability to ensure removal or blocking of content even when the platform or host is not a defendant.
The notes present this as a remedy to address practical difficulties in defamation proceedings. Plaintiffs may obtain a judgment or injunction against a poster or publisher, but still struggle to remove the content if intermediaries are not parties to the proceedings. The new order fills that gap.
The notes emphasise that the intermediary must be heard before the order is made (that is, procedural fairness).
The notes also anticipate temporary or urgent orders in appropriate cases, recognising that defamatory content online may require prompt removal before full hearings.
The change is framed as improving the enforceability and efficacy of defamation orders in the digital environment, ensuring that remedies are practical and meaningful in online contexts.
Plaintiffs can obtain effective takedown relief without suing platforms directly—answering a long-standing procedural inefficiency identified in media reporting.
Offer to Make Amends – Access Prevention as a Remedy
Offers can now include “access prevention steps” for digital matter (removal, blocking, or disabling access for some/all users), and may be made instead of, or in addition to, the traditional apology/correction components.
The Explanatory Notes state that this may involve removing, blocking, disabling, or otherwise preventing access to defamatory digital matter.
The purpose of the change is to give publishers and digital intermediaries greater flexibility in responding to complaints about defamatory online content.
Instead of being limited to a correction, apology, or payment of damages, a publisher may now offer to take practical steps to restrict access to the defamatory material.
The Explanatory Notes explain that this amendment promotes the protection of reputation and privacy by providing additional avenues to limit harm from defamatory publications, primarily where an apology or correction alone may not sufficiently address the damage caused.
Implication: A more straightforward, digital-age pathway to settle s 12A concerns notices, especially on fast-moving social platforms.
Absolute Privilege Expanded – Reports to Police
Express absolute privilege where the matter is published to an official of an Australian police force/service in their official capacity, with “official” defined.
This protects good-faith complainants reporting alleged misconduct or crimes.
The Attorney-General’s announcement spotlights this reform as removing a barrier for victim-survivors.
This change implements recommendations from the Stage 2, Part B review of the Model Defamation Provisions, which examined whether the defence of absolute privilege should be broadened to include reports to law enforcement authorities.
The purpose of the amendment is to protect people who report wrongdoing from being sued for defamation.
It ensures that individuals and organisations can make good faith reports to the police without fear of legal retaliation.
The Explanatory Notes explain that this expansion is intended to encourage the reporting of alleged crimes or misconduct and to reduce the chilling effect that defamation law can have on those who might otherwise come forward.
However, the notes make clear that the extension of absolute privilege is not unlimited.
It is designed to be appropriately constrained so that it cannot be misused, while still balancing the public interest in open communication with the protection of personal reputation.
Tension Between This and False Sexual Assault Allegations
The amendment extending absolute privilege to reports made to police protects people who report crimes from being sued for defamation, even if the report later turns out to be false or malicious.
While the intent is to encourage genuine victims, especially of sexual violence, to come forward without fear, the consequence is that those who are falsely accused, most often men, lose any ability to seek civil redress for reputational harm.
Absolute privilege grants complete immunity, meaning an accuser cannot be held liable for defamation, even for knowingly false allegations.
This creates a difficult policy tension: it strengthens protections for complainants but leaves innocent people with virtually no means to repair their reputations once a false report is made.
While this amendment may disadvantage those falsely accused of crimes, the government has justified the change on policy grounds of improving reporting and law enforcement cooperation.
The tension between fairness to the accused and protection for complainants remains a matter for future legislative review.
Read our article – False Sexual Allegations & Defamation Claims
What This Means for Defamation Law in Australia
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) reshapes defamation law to address online publications and digital platforms better.
For plaintiffs, it delivers faster, more practical relief – allowing courts to identify anonymous posters, order takedowns without suing platforms, and encourage quick settlements by removing or blocking defamatory content.
For defendants, it introduces new safe harbours for digital intermediaries that act responsibly, providing clarity for hosts, storage providers and search engines that play only a passive role.
For courts and practitioners, the reforms promote efficiency, early resolution of intermediary issues, and greater national consistency across Australia’s defamation laws.
For plaintiffs (individuals and businesses)
- Faster path to relief: You can pursue the poster and obtain non-party takedown orders against platforms once you have judgment or an injunction, without naming the platform as a defendant. Preliminary discovery helps unmask anonymous users while safeguarding against misuse.
- More effective amends: Expect settlement offers that include prompt removal/blocking—often the remedy victims most want.
- Safer reporting to police: Expanded absolute privilege reduces defamation chilling effects when reporting serious misconduct to police.
For defendants (publishers, admins, platforms)
- New safe harbours: If you are a digital intermediary, build and advertise an accessible complaints mechanism and be ready to take reasonable access-prevention steps quickly—these are now central to a statutory defence. Courts are encouraged to decide intermediary status early.
- Clarity for infrastructure and search: Hosts/CDNs, storage and search providers gain clearer exemptions where they neither initiate nor shape publication. That reduces “deep-pocket defendant” exposure and focuses litigation on the originator.
For courts and practitioners
- Procedural efficiency: Early determination of intermediary issues and non-party orders should cut costs and complexity. Expect more interlocutory work around access-prevention measures and proportionality.
- National coherence: Queensland’s move supports uniformity across Australia’s defamation landscape, a stated goal of the national review process and a point stressed in government and media commentary.
Overall, the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) represents a significant evolution in Australian defamation law.
It modernises how courts, platforms, and individuals handle online content, strikes a new balance between freedom of speech and reputation, and aligns Queensland with the national model law framework.
FAQ – Questions & Answers
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) introduces wide-ranging changes to how defamation disputes are handled online.
These FAQs explain the key reforms in plain English—what they mean for individuals, businesses, and digital platforms operating in Queensland.
What is the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld)?
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a significant reform of Queensland’s Defamation Act 2005. It modernises the law to address online publications and social media, introducing new rules for digital platforms, search engines, and website administrators. It also strengthens the court’s powers to identify anonymous posters, order takedowns, and align Queensland’s laws with the national model defamation reforms.
Why did the Queensland Government introduce this Bill?
The Bill was introduced to bring Queensland’s defamation law into line with national reforms and to make it more effective in the digital era. Courts and policymakers recognised that existing laws were outdated and did not adequately deal with social media, anonymous posts, or the role of digital intermediaries in spreading defamatory content.
What are “digital intermediaries” under the new law?
Digital intermediaries are services that technically facilitate online communication but do not control or edit content. This includes hosting services, cloud storage providers, internet service providers (ISPs), and search engines. If they act only in a passive, technical capacity, they can qualify for statutory exemptions and avoid liability for defamation under the new sections 10C–10E.
How do the new exemptions for digital intermediaries work?
Sections 10C–10E create clear rules for when digital intermediaries are not liable for defamatory content. If a host, conduit, or storage service transmits or stores content and does not encourage posting, select recipients, or edit material, it will not be treated as a “publisher.” Courts can decide this issue early to avoid unnecessary litigation.
What is the new defence for digital intermediaries?
Under section 31A, intermediaries such as social media platforms or administrators gain a defence if they provide an accessible complaints process and take reasonable access-prevention steps—like removing or blocking content—after receiving a complaint. This encourages platforms to respond quickly to defamation concerns while balancing protection for both victims and responsible service providers.
Can courts now identify anonymous online posters?
Yes. The Bill gives courts the power to make preliminary discovery orders to identify or locate anonymous posters. This helps victims of online defamation bring proceedings against the real person responsible. Courts must still consider privacy, safety, and public interest factors to ensure that disclosure orders are fair and proportionate.
What are “non-party orders” and why do they matter?
Non-party orders allow courts to compel digital intermediaries—such as platforms or hosts not named in a case—to take down or block defamatory material after a judgment or injunction. This ensures that defamatory content can be removed effectively even if the platform was not sued, closing a long-standing enforcement gap in online defamation cases.
How has the law changed for offers to make amends?
The law now allows publishers to include “access prevention steps” in an offer to make amends. Instead of only issuing a correction or apology, a publisher can now propose removing, blocking, or disabling access to defamatory digital matter. This gives parties more flexible and practical options to resolve online defamation disputes quickly and without litigation.
Why has absolute privilege been extended to reports to police?
The extension of absolute privilege protects people who make good-faith reports to police from being sued for defamation. It encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of legal consequences. However, this also means that even false or malicious reports are immune from defamation claims, creating tension for people falsely accused of serious offences.
When will the new defamation laws start in Queensland?
The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (Qld) is set to commence seven days after receiving Royal Assent. Once in force, it will harmonise Queensland’s laws with other Australian states and provide a clearer, faster, and fairer framework for resolving online defamation disputes in the digital era.
