Page:ESafety Commissioner v X Corp.pdf/7

 ::(ii) such longer period as the Commissioner allows.

(2) So far as is reasonably practicable, the material must be identified in the removal notice in a way that is sufficient to enable the provider of the service to comply with the notice.

12 "Class 1 material" is defined by s 106. The only relevant aspect of the definition is s 106(1)(b), which is as follows.

13 Another important expression in s 109 that is affected by a definition in the OS Act is "removal". The cognate expression "removed" is defined in s 12, as follows.

14 As noted above, s 111 requires a person to comply with a requirement under a removal notice "to the extent that the person is capable of doing so". How that qualification interacts with s 109(1)(e), pursuant to which a notice only requires "all reasonable steps", may need to be explored at some stage but was not the subject of argument on this occasion.

15 The final injunction that the Commissioner seeks aligns, as noted above, with the Commissioner's conception of what the removal notice required X Corp to do. It was framed in several alternative forms in the originating application, on the basis that the optimal form would depend on a fuller understanding of how X Corp's systems work at a technical level. The prayer for relief is as follows.

3. An order under s 121(2) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) requiring the respondent to do the following:


 * (a) remove (in the ordinary sense of the word rather than the meaning in s 12 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)) the material identified in the Notice from the respondent's X service (previously known as Twitter);


 * (b) alternatively, restrict the discoverability of the material identified in the Notice to the author's profile so that only the author, and no other

eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499