Key takeaways

• From 15 December 2025, South Australian courts have been able to require social media companies, search engines and other “digital intermediaries” to limit or prevent access to defamatory content online, even where they are not parties to any court proceedings.
• In South Australia, digital intermediaries are not protected by the new defence to the publication of defamatory material, or the new statutory exemptions from liability for passive digital intermediaries and search engine providers, which have recently been legislated by most other Australian states and territories. Instead, their liability will continue to be determined by reference to common law principles.
• Reports made to police officers acting in their official capacity are now protected by the defence of absolute privilege (although that protection does not extend to re-publications of those reports).¹

On 15 December 2025, another set of amendments to South Australia’s Defamation Act 2005 (the Defamation Act) came into force. The Defamation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2025 (SA) (the Amending Legislation) has updated South Australia’s defamation regime by implementing some of Part A and all of Part B of the Stage 2 defamation reforms. These are the latest in the series of defamation legislation reforms which has been rolled out across Australian jurisdictions over the last several years.

Both Parts A and B of the Stage 2 defamation reforms were approved by the Attorneys-General of all Australian jurisdictions other than South Australia in late 2023. In summary:

• Part A of the Stage 2 reforms relates to “digital intermediaries” and the publication of “digital matters” (new concepts introduced by the reforms). The main purpose of the Stage 2 Part A reforms is to clarify the precise scope of digital intermediaries’ liability for defamation in respect of digital matters. The Part A reforms were influenced by recent decisions of the High Court, including Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller (Voller).² The Part A reforms essentially dilute the effect of Voller and were intended to achieve a better balance between protecting individuals’ reputations and not unreasonably limiting freedom of expression in situations where defamatory material is published on online platforms;³ and
• Part B of the Stage 2 reforms extends the scope of the defence of absolute privilege to cover reports made to police officers acting in their official capacity. The purpose of the Part B reforms is to ensure that there is a free flow of information to police and that people are not deterred from making reports to police by the threat of potentially being sued for defamation by the person who allegedly committed the criminal offence.⁴

What’s changing?

New key concepts

The three key concepts introduced by the Amending Legislation are “digital matters”, “digital intermediaries” and “access prevention steps”.

A digital matter simply refers to content published in electronic form by means of an online service. The practical effect of this definition is that the Amending Legislation may be relevant where any allegedly defamatory material is published on the internet, including on a website or social media platform, or where it appears within search engine results.

A digital intermediary is a person who provides or administers the online service used to publish an allegedly defamatory matter. This definition excludes the author or “poster” of the defamatory matter. This definition will likely capture search engine operators like Google and Bing; social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok; email services and product review websites.⁵ The scope of this definition is broad, and any small business or individual who runs a website or blog could be considered a “digital intermediary”.

The Amending Legislation defines access preventions steps, in relation to a digital matter, as being steps:

• to remove the digital matter; or
• to block, disable or otherwise prevent access, whether by some or all persons, to the matter.

New power to make orders against non-party digital intermediaries

The Amending Legislation gives the Court new powers to require a digital intermediary who is not a party to the proceedings (a non-party digital intermediary) to take particular steps in relation to defamatory, or allegedly defamatory, digital matter.

Specifically, the Court can order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention (or other) steps which the Court considers necessary to:

• prevent or limit the continued publication or republication of the matter; or
• comply with or give effect to a Court judgment, or an injunction or other Court order which prevents the Respondent from continuing to publish or re-publish the matter.

Importantly, the Court can only make an order against a non-party digital intermediary if it has first given them the opportunity to be heard about whether it would be “appropriate” for the order to be made. However, if the Court considers it necessary for an order to be made “expeditiously”, the Court may make a temporary order without first giving the digital intermediary an opportunity to be heard, which order will apply until they are given that opportunity.

Expanded absolute privilege defence

The other significant change made by the Amending Legislation relates to the defence of absolute privilege. Absolute privilege is a complete defence to a claim of defamation, but it is only available in limited circumstances, such as where the defamatory matter was published in the course of the proceedings of a parliamentary body or an Australian Court.

The Amending Legislation extends the scope of the defence of absolute privilege to protect publications made to an “official” of any Australian police force or service while they are acting in an official capacity. A police “official” in this context includes police officers, employees of police forces and other persons engaged to act for or on behalf of the police force.

The defence of absolute privilege will be available in these expanded circumstances in cases where the Applicant’s cause of action for defamation accrues after 15 December 2025.

Importantly, the Amending Legislation does not extend the protection of absolute privilege to circumstances where the substance of a report to police is subsequently communicated or re-published to someone else, including to the media.⁶

What’s different from other jurisdictions?

The Amending Legislation does not include some of the most important parts of the Stage 2 Part A reforms. As we reported when they were approved, the suite of amendments to which most other Australian jurisdictions agreed also included:

1. An exemption from liability for defamation for digital intermediaries that are ‘passive’ service providers.
2. A separate exemption from liability for search engine providers.
3. A new defence to the publication of defamatory material which digital intermediaries can rely on, provided they meet specified criteria.

The Amending Legislation does not enact either of these exemptions or the defence.

In contrast, the full Stage 2 Part A reforms, including these exemptions and defence, have been legislated by the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria.

What’s next?

The broad definition of “digital intermediaries” means the Amending Legislation could apply to many businesses and individuals. Despite the amendments, liability for search engines, social media platforms, and individuals or small businesses that run websites will still ultimately be determined by South Australian courts by reference to key case law.

Importantly, they may still be found to be “publishers” of defamatory content under the High Court’s principles in Voller, even though the Stage 2 Part A reforms were intended to clarify the law following that decision. Digital intermediaries sued in South Australia also will not have access to the defences and exemptions available in most other states and territories.

When the Stage 2 reforms were approved, South Australia stated that it supported only some aspects of the Part A reforms and would consider how they should apply locally.⁷ We will be monitoring whether South Australia introduces further amendments to clarify the liability of digital intermediaries, particularly given concerns about the ongoing impact of Voller.

How can we help?

We have extensive experience advising businesses and individuals on defamation and media issues across Australia (including South Australia).

If you require advice in respect of the implications the Amending Legislation may have on your business, or need any assistance with defamation issues, please contact a member of our team for further information on how we can assist you.

This article was written by Alexandra Douvartzidis, Special Counsel, Jonathan Parsalidis, Solicitor and India Whitton, Solicitor, and reviewed by Peter Campbell, Partner

¹the absolute privilege amendments only apply where the cause of action accrues after 15 December 2025 (being the commencement date of the amendments).

²(2021) 273 CLR 346 (Voller).

³Standing Council of Attorneys-General Communiqué, 22 September 2023, page 3, available at: Standing Council of Attorneys-General communiqués | Attorney-General’s Department (ag.gov.au).

⁴Model Defamation Amendment (Absolute Privilege) Provisions 2023, page 1, available at: Model Defamation Amendment (Absolute Privilege) Provisions 2023; South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 21 August 2025, 12812–13 (Katrine Hildyard).

⁵South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 21 August 2025, 12813 (Katrine Hildyard).

⁶See also South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 21 August 2025, 12813 (Katrine Hildyard).

⁷Standing Council of Attorneys-General Communiqué, 22 September 2023, available at: Standing Council of Attorneys-General communiqués | Attorney-General’s Department