FOI 25177 Release document.pdf

link to page 1 link to page 1 eSafety FOI 25177
Document 1 of 15
eSafety Commissioner FOI 25177
Document created under section 17, Freedom of Information Act 1982

Part 1
A breakdown of total legal costs incurred by the eSafety Commissioner from 1 January 2023 to [1 September 2025], including:
•  External legal fees (law ﬁrms, counsel)
•  Internal legal costs1
•  Court ﬁling or hearing fees
•  Settlement costs (if any)
•  Any reimbursements or cost orders (either awarded or paid)

External legal fees (inc. GST where applicable)
Filing or hearing fees
Settlement costs
Reimbursements or costs orders2
$2,194,372.01
$10,155.00
$0
$623,971.70

Part 2
A list of al  legal actions or proceedings the eSafety Commissioner has been involved in (either as applicant or respondent) during the same period, including:
•  Name of case and court/tribunal
•  General nature of the case (e.g. takedown dispute, regulatory enforcement, free speech chal enge)
•  Outcome of the case (win/loss/settled/withdrawn)
•  Whether a cost order was issued (and against whom)
Note: the fol owing table reﬂects the state of affairs as at 1 September 2025, and does not capture subsequent developments unless marked.

Proceeding (parties + case ref)
Forum
General nature of case
Outcome if finalised
Costs ordered against whom?
Baumgarten and eSafety
Administrative
Review of a purported decision to give X Corp. a removal
Commissioner (2024/3798)
Appeals/Review Tribunal
notice in relation to a post by the Applicant.
On appeal, not finalised.
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
costs' jurisdiction.
eSafety Commissioner v Baumgarten
(VID390/2025)
Federal Court of Australia  Whether the ART has jurisdiction to review a decision by
eSafety to send a ‘complaint alert’ to X Corp.
Not finalised.
N/A - matter not finalised.
Telegram FZ-LLC v eSafety
Commissioner (VID482/2025)
Federal Court of Australia  Judicial review regarding infringement notice given for
al eged non-compliance with BOSE reporting notice.
Not finalised.
N/A - matter not finalised.
eSafety Commissioner v X Corp.
Proceedings discontinued by the eSafety
(NSD474/2024)
Federal Court of Australia  Seeking injunction to require X Corp. to comply with a
s 109 removal notice.
Commissioner.
eSafety Commissioner
X Corp. and eSafety Commissioner
Administrative
Chal enge to the validity of a s 109 removal notice issued  Proceedings discontinued by the eSafety
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
(2024/2797)
Appeals/Review Tribunal
to X Corp.
Commissioner.
costs' jurisdiction.

1 Internal legal costs are unable to be accurately calculated due to nature and structure of eSafety Legal Services Division and its predecessors.
2 This ﬁgure for reimbursements and costs orders reﬂects only the ﬁnalised court order from one proceeding (made against eSafety). It does not reﬂect two costs orders that had been made at the date of this FOI request in eSafety’s favour that are yet to be quantiﬁed
and ﬁnalised – see X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner (FCA VID956/2023) and X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner (FCA VID1186/2024). It also does not capture the costs order subsequently made by the Federal Court of Australia in eSafety’s favour in eSafety
Commissioner v Rotondo (FCA QUD451/2023).

link to page 2 Proceeding (parties + case ref)
Forum
General nature of case
Outcome if finalised
Costs ordered against whom?
X Corp. and eSafety Commissioner
(2024/2582)
Administrative
Chal enge to the validity of a s 88 removal notice issued
Removal notice set aside. Tribunal found that the
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
Elston and eSafety Commissioner
Appeals/Review Tribunal
to X Corp.
material in question did not meet the statutory
costs' jurisdiction.
(2024/2583)
threshold under s 7.
Applicant seeking declaration that Online Safety
X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner
(Relevant Electronic Services – Class 1A and 1B Material)
(NSD751/2025)
Federal Court of Australia  Industry Standard 2024 either does not apply to its
Not finalised.
N/A - matter not finalised.
service or was not validly made.
eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo
eSafety Commissioner seeking civil penalties for
(QUD451/2023)
Federal Court of Australia  contraventions of sections 75, 80 and 83 of the Online
Not finalised.3
N/A - matter not finalised.
Safety Act.
Col ins v eSafety Commissioner
Administrative
Applicant seeking review of a decision to not give a
(2024/10368)
Appeals/Review Tribunal
removal notice under Part 6 of the Act.
Proceedings discontinued by the Applicant.
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
costs' jurisdiction.
Administrative Review Tribunal found that there was
Kirkham v eSafety Commissioner
Administrative
Applicant seeking statement of reasons where eSafety
a reviewable decision for the purposes of s 220 of
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
(2025/1002)
Appeals/Review Tribunal
Commissioner had responded that there was no
obligation to provide such a statement.
the Online Safety Act and ordered the eSafety
costs' jurisdiction.
Commissioner to provide a statement of reasons.
Administrative Review Tribunal found that the
Commissioner does not have the power to ask
X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner
Administrative
Applicant sought review of decision to give notice under
questions which are framed by reference to a
N/A - the Administrative Review Tribunal is a 'no
(2024/2579)
Appeals/Review Tribunal
s 56(2) of the Act.
particular subtopic, such as Terrorist and Violent
costs' jurisdiction.
Extremism material. The Tribunal remitted the notice
to eSafety for reconsideration.
X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner
Applicant sought review of Commissioner's conduct to
(VID956/2023) (related to
Federal Court of Australia  continue to rely on the s 56(2) notice that was given to
Justice Wheelehan found that X Corp. failed to show
VID/1186/2024 and VID1092/2023)
Twitter, Inc. to issue an infringement notice to X Corp.
that it was not required to comply with the notice.
X Corp.
X Corp. v eSafety Commissioner
(VID1186/2024) (related to
Federal Court of Australia  Applicant appealed interlocutory decision of Wheelehan J
VID956/2023 and VID 1092/2023)
(Ful  Court)
in VID1092/2023.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
X Corp.
eSafety Commissioner v X Corp.
(VID1092/2023) (related to
Federal Court of Australia  eSafety Commissioner seeking civil penalties for
Not finalised. Matter has recently recommenced - it
VID956/2023 and VID1186/2024)
contravention of s 57 of the Act.
was stayed pending outcome of VID1186/2024.
N/A - matter not finalised.

3 This matter has subsequently been ﬁnalised, with the respondent ordered to pay a $343,500 civil penalty and costs awarded to eSafety. eSafety’s costs in this matter are yet to be quantiﬁed and ﬁnalised.