Social Media Users Beware - Who is responsible for publications on social media?
October 29, 2026
Author name
In September 2021, the High Court held in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller; Nationwide News Pty Limited v Voller; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller
(Voller) that media outlets may be held accountable for comments made by third party users on their Facebook pages as publishers. By extension, it is foreseeable that companies and organisations may now be held to be liable in defamation for comments that are made by third parties on their social media platforms.
What is defamation?
In summary, defamation is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone, whether it be a company or individual, by communicating a defamatory meaning which may arise from the imputations of the publication.
An essential element of defamation law in Australia is that the material must be published. Publication can occur by a variety of methods of communication, including by spoken words or audible sounds, written or printed matter, drawings or photographs, signs or gestures, broadcast or telecast material, live theatrical performances or the display of objects in public.
Intention is not an essential element of defamation. A person or entity can be held liable for publishing defamatory material even if they did not intend to defame anyone. A person can also be held liable as the publisher of defamation if they failing to act or remove the defamatory material.
Voller case: the background
Dylan Voller was a young Aboriginal man who was mistreated in a Northern Territory youth detention centre. Mr Voller’s mistreatment was documented in an ABC Four Corners Report in 2016 which then sparked a Royal Commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory. After the Royal Commission commenced, Mr Voller began making media appearances to discuss his mistreatment. Different media outlets began sharing stories, interviews and videos of Mr Voller on their Facebook pages. Some Facebook users began leaving defamatory comments of Mr Voller on the Facebook pages of those media outlets that had shared content about Mr Voller.
Instead of suing the authors of those defamatory comments, Mr Voller sued the media outlets (Fairfax Media, Nationwide News and Sky News) arguing that they were responsible for publishing the defamatory comments.
Voller case: the argument
The Voller case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of NSW. The primary judge considered whether Mr Voller had "established the publication element of the cause of action of defamation against the defendant[s] in respect of each of the Facebook comments by third-party users". The media outlets argued that there was no case against them but the Supreme Court found in favour of Mr Voller and held that the media outlets held the burden of publishing the defamatory content.
This decision was appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal and then to the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and ultimately held that the media outlets were the publishers of the third-party Facebook user comments, affirming the decision made by the Supreme Court. In the reasons for their decision, the majority said that “each appellant by the creation of a public Facebook page and the posting of content on that page, facilitated, encouraged and thereby assisted the publication of comments from third-party Facebook users.” The High Court said that any degree of participation in the process of communication, however minor, makes the participant a publisher
Implications of the decision
The decision confirmed that media outlets have an active responsibility to monitor and censor comments that are damaging or inappropriate that are published on their Facebook pages.
Prior to the Voller decision, social media platforms (such as Facebook) did not provide users with the option to turn off comments made on their pages. However, Facebook has since modified their platform to provide users with greater control over comments published on their page.
What does this mean for you?
The effect of this decision will likely extend beyond media outlets and Facebook and apply to all people and organisations that maintain their own social media platforms. It is therefore important for all people and organisations that maintain their own social media platforms to ensure they tighten up their review mechanisms and make an active effort to regularly monitor what third parties are publishing on their pages.
By Danielle Williams (Associate) and Matilda Lloyd (Paralegal)
If you would like further information in relation to how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 or by email at office@bailiwicklegal.com.au.
For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au/
The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on this information.
For many growers, the biggest barrier to pursuing a claim is not the legal process itself. It is the relationship. In regional communities, suppliers, agronomists and growers often work together over many years, and many farmers are understandably reluctant to raise concerns if they believe it may damage a valued business relationship. Recent discussions regarding the performance of certain canola varieties have highlighted an important issue for farming businesses: protecting your legal rights does not necessarily mean taking an aggressive approach or ending a long-standing commercial relationship. Where concerns arise about the performance of a seed variety, chemical or other agricultural product, growers are often hesitant to make inquiries or seek compensation because the supplier may be a trusted local business or a person they have dealt with for decades. However, raising legitimate concerns and seeking advice should not be viewed as a personal attack. In many cases, suppliers will notify their insurer as soon as a significant claim is raised. From that point, discussions regarding liability and compensation are often managed by insurers, loss assessors and legal representatives. As a result, a grower may effectively be dealing with an insurance claim rather than a dispute directly with the supplier. That distinction is important. A claim can often be investigated and resolved without permanently damaging an otherwise productive business relationship. At the same time, growers should be aware that not every supplier is insured for every type of loss. Some businesses may not carry insurance that responds to large-scale agricultural claims, while others may not have sufficient coverage where multiple growers are affected. Early advice can therefore be critical in understanding both your legal position and the practical realities of recovery. If you are experiencing concerns regarding crop performance, keep detailed records, retain product packaging, batch information, invoices and correspondence, obtain independent agronomic advice, and seek legal advice before signing any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Protecting your rights does not have to mean burning bridges. Often, the best outcomes are achieved through early communication, careful investigation and practical resolution. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
One of the most common concerns we hear from growers experiencing issues with agricultural products is: "I don't want to sue someone I've known for years." In regional communities, business relationships matter. Suppliers, agronomists and growers often work together over many seasons, and many farmers are understandably reluctant to take action if they believe doing so may damage those relationships. However, pursuing a claim does not necessarily mean attacking a long-standing business relationship. In many cases, the supplier will notify its insurer of the claim and the matter will be managed by the insurer and its representatives. Where insurance is available, discussions regarding compensation often proceed through the insurer's claims process rather than as a personal dispute between grower and supplier. For that reason, growers should not assume that raising legitimate concerns about product performance will automatically result in the loss of an important commercial relationship. That said, every situation is different. Some suppliers may not carry insurance for particular losses, and others may not have sufficient insurance coverage to respond to multiple large-scale claims. In those circumstances, early advice can be particularly important, both to preserve evidence and to understand the practical options available. If you believe a seed variety, chemical or other agricultural product has not performed as represented, keep detailed records, obtain independent agronomic advice and seek legal advice before signing any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement. The earlier advice is obtained, the more options are generally available. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Recent concerns regarding the performance of certain canola varieties have attracted significant attention across the Western Australian grain industry. The issue was recently discussed on the ABC WA Country Hour, where Philip Brunner, Director of Bailiwick Legal, commented on the legal issues that may arise when agricultural products fail to perform as expected. Farmers understand that crop performance can be affected by seasonal conditions, rainfall, frost, pests, disease and other factors beyond their control. However, different considerations may arise where a seed, chemical or agricultural product does not perform consistently with the representations made by the supplier at the time of sale. A well-publicised dispute involving John Snooke, a grower from Cunderdin, highlighted these issues when concerns were raised regarding the performance of a herbicide-tolerant canola variety. Following intervention by the WA Department of Consumer Protection, compensation was ultimately paid to affected growers. As input costs continue to increase, growers should be aware that legal protections may be available where a product: Does not match its description; Is not fit for its intended purpose; or Fails to perform in accordance with representations made by the supplier. If a crop is underperforming, growers should retain seed tags, invoices, marketing materials and paddock records, obtain independent agronomic advice and notify the supplier as soon as possible. Early evidence can be critical in assessing whether a legal claim may exist. Importantly, growers should not sign any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement (NDA) without first obtaining independent legal advice. These documents may limit future rights or prevent growers from discussing the issue with others who may be similarly affected. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
