Australia is proposing a significant overhaul of online safety laws. But beyond protecting users from harm, the changes raise important questions about social media marketing, consumer choice and the growing dependence of businesses on technology platforms.

For years, businesses have invested heavily in building audiences on social media. They’ve developed content strategies around algorithms, paid to reach new customers and encouraged consumers to follow their brands.

But what happens when consumers are given greater control over what appears in their feeds? And what happens when a platform suddenly removes a business’s access to the audience it has spent years building?

These questions are becoming increasingly relevant as Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation progresses through Parliament.

The reforms are primarily intended to protect Australians from online harm, but they could also have implications for how businesses communicate, market themselves and manage their reputations.

How did we get here?

Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021 established a regulatory framework for addressing harmful online content, including cyberbullying, image-based abuse and other serious online harms.

However, the digital environment has changed considerably since then. Artificial intelligence, increasingly sophisticated recommendation algorithms and the rapid growth of online platforms have created new challenges for regulators.

A statutory review of the legislation recommended introducing a broader duty of care, shifting the responsibility for preventing harm towards the companies designing and operating digital services.

In May 2026, the Federal Government released an issues paper outlining how this approach could work.

The central idea was straightforward: rather than relying primarily on removing harmful content after it appears, digital service providers should take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm in the first place.

In September, the Government announced My Feed, My Way, a proposal to give social media users greater control over the content recommended to them.

On 15 October 2026, Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 to Parliament.

What would the new laws change?

The proposed legislation would establish minimum safety standards for covered online services, including social media platforms, gaming services, apps and AI technologies.

Providers would be required to assess risks associated with their services and take reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable harm.

The Bill includes stronger protections for children, expanded powers for the eSafety Commissioner, improved complaints processes and faster responses to certain forms of online abuse.

Companies that fail to comply with the proposed duty could face substantial financial penalties, potentially reaching $109.2 million.

The Bill also includes protections for professional news and entertainment material, following concerns about freedom of expression and the potential reach of the legislation.

These are proposed legal responsibilities for covered digital service providers. They do not automatically impose equivalent obligations on every business using social media.

My Feed, My Way: Could brands lose control of their reach?

One of the most commercially interesting proposals is My Feed, My Way.

The initiative would give eligible social media users the option of viewing content from accounts they choose to follow, rather than relying on algorithmically recommended content.

For consumers, this could provide greater control over their online experience.

For marketers, it raises some interesting questions.

Social media algorithms have become powerful discovery tools. They allow businesses to reach potential customers who have never encountered their brands before.

A small business can publish a video that reaches thousands of people beyond its existing followers. A larger brand can use entertaining or topical content to introduce itself to entirely new audiences.

But if more users choose following-only feeds, organic discovery could become more difficult.

That could increase pressure on businesses to invest in paid advertising or alternative ways of reaching customers.

There is no evidence yet that this outcome is inevitable. Much will depend on how the rules are implemented and how consumers respond.

Nevertheless, the proposal highlights a vulnerability in marketing strategies that depend heavily on platforms businesses don’t control.

The latest development: Who holds technology companies accountable?

On 28 October, independent MP Sophie Scamps is expected to propose an amendment establishing an independent Online Services Ombudsman.

The proposed service would give Australians an external avenue to resolve disputes with technology companies.

This could include situations where a small business loses access to its social media account and cannot obtain a meaningful response from the platform.

The Government’s Bill already proposes stronger internal complaints and dispute resolution requirements. The debate is whether an independent external mechanism is also necessary.

For businesses, the issue is significant.

Consider a retailer that relies on Instagram to generate sales, a professional services firm that uses LinkedIn to communicate with clients, or a hospitality business whose Facebook page is its main customer information channel.

Losing access to one of these accounts could disrupt customer enquiries, advertising activity and communication with existing audiences.

The financial consequences may be immediate. The reputational consequences could last considerably longer.

An independent complaints mechanism would not eliminate those risks, but it could provide a more accessible way for businesses to challenge platform decisions.

At the time of writing, the ombudsman remains a proposed amendment, not an established service.

What does this mean for PR and reputation management?

For businesses, the broader lesson is about control.

Social media platforms provide extraordinary opportunities to connect with audiences, but the relationship is largely governed by systems and policies outside a brand’s control.

Algorithms change and accounts can be restricted. Platforms introduce new features, adjust advertising costs and alter the way content is distributed. Keeping up with the current lightning speed has become a role in itself, and businesses have little influence over these decisions – this is why a diversified communications strategy matters.

Public relations, earned media, thought leadership, newsletters, search visibility, industry relationships and owned content all help businesses build awareness beyond a single social platform.

Earned media is particularly valuable because it allows businesses to demonstrate expertise and reach audiences through independent publications.

It is not a substitute for social media, nor does it guarantee trust. But it provides another way to establish credibility and visibility.

Owned channels, such as company websites and email databases, also allow businesses to maintain more direct relationships with customers.

And strong crisis communications planning should consider what happens if a major communications channel becomes unavailable. The core of our approach at Popcom is that reputation management should be proactive rather than reactive. That means identifying vulnerabilities before they become crises, building credible relationships and ensuring businesses have multiple ways to communicate with the people who matter to them.

What should businesses do now?

The Digital Duty of Care Bill is still progressing through Parliament, and its final form remains uncertain. Businesses do not need to overhaul their marketing strategies in anticipation of changes that have not yet been finalised. But there are practical questions worth considering.

How dependent is your business on organic social media reach?

Would customers still be able to find and contact you if your main social media account became unavailable?

Are you building an audience that actively wants to hear from you, or relying primarily on algorithmic discovery?

And does your communications strategy extend beyond the platforms where you publish content?

These questions are relevant regardless of whether the proposed legislation passes in its current form.

The future of brand visibility

The Digital Duty of Care debate is ultimately about responsibility, control and accountability in the digital environment.

For consumers, it is about greater protection and choice, for digital platforms, it is about taking greater responsibility for the systems they operate.

And for brands, it is an opportunity to reconsider how they build visibility and trust.

We’ve spent years asking how to make algorithms show our content to more people. Perhaps the more important question is whether we’re creating something people would actively choose to see?

Algorithms can deliver attention, but ultimately, your reputation is what gives people a reason to stay.

---

Amanda Lacey is the founder of Popcom, an Australian public relations and strategic communications agency specialising in media relations, corporate reputation and communications strategy.