US asks Australia to exempt American platforms from new digital law

The United States government has formally asked Australia to exempt American platforms from its proposed digital duty-of-care regime. The submission, published on September 22 during consultation on the exposure draft, argues that the obligations could change the reach of content outside Australia and create risks for freedom of expression.

The intervention targets the core of the plan announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government on September 8. The “My Feed, My Way” initiative would require social networks to offer a clear choice for the default feed: personalized recommendations or content limited to accounts and creators each person has chosen to follow.

This dispute does not mean that a ban or a new rule is already in effect. Australia's document remains an exposure draft and has not passed Parliament. Likewise, the censorship claim is the US government's stated position, not a judicial finding or a confirmed effect of the proposal.

What Washington objects to

The American response questions how Australia would define concepts such as “foreseeable harm” and risk, who would adjudicate disputes, and what appeals would be available to platforms and users. Washington argues that broad requirements could encourage companies to remove or reduce distribution of lawful material to avoid penalties.

The US government also says global platforms generally build products at scale rather than as entirely separate systems for every country. A mandatory redesign of Australian feeds could therefore affect users in other jurisdictions, according to the submission. That is a projection made by the United States; the consultation does not establish that this outcome will necessarily occur.

The Business Software Alliance raised a different set of concerns. It recommended excluding services supplied only between businesses, limiting responsibility to people with day-to-day control of a service, and extending the transition period. Taken together, the submissions show that the dispute covers not only content moderation but also technical scope and corporate accountability.

What Australia is proposing

The draft would require social networks to notify both new and existing users about their feed choice. People over 16 could accept personalized recommendations or select an experience based on accounts they follow. The proposal also covers online games, apps, messaging services and chatbots through duties intended to protect people under 18 from potentially harmful design features and specified content.

The risks listed by the Australian government include pornography, promotion of eating disorders, hostility toward women, glorification of crime or dangerous stunts, and material capable of causing serious mental distress, including abuse and bullying. Platforms would have to document their measures and check whether they remain effective over time.

The eSafety Commissioner would enforce the regime. The government says noncompliance could attract penalties of up to A$109.2 million. Removal mechanisms would also be expanded for apps and websites that create fabricated intimate images.

A dispute about product design, not only content

Australia's response is that the proposal would return choices to users rather than control political opinions. That distinction reveals the central issue: the draft regulates both what circulates and how platforms organize and recommend it.

If the final text retains mandatory feed choice, companies would need to show that the non-personalized alternative is genuine, easy to find and respected after selection. If American platforms receive an exemption, however, the rule would lose practical reach across much of the social-media market. Both are reasonable consequences to anticipate, but they still depend on the final wording and a parliamentary vote.

The controversy expands an Australian agenda already shaped by privacy and digital-product design, including the country's consideration of smart-glasses restrictions in government buildings. This proposal reaches beyond one device: it tests how far one country can require changes to platforms used globally.