New laws in Victoria target online trolls and harmful tech designs. How will they work?

The Victorian government has announced it will introduce “nation-leading” laws to make technology companies accountable for preventing hate and keeping children safe.

The announcement comes as governments around the world grapple with how best to mitigate online harms, including emerging ones associated with artificial intelligence (AI).

So what are the new laws? And how will they work in practice?

Unmasking trolls

The state will introduce a new “unmasking” law. This will enable Victorians who are being vilified online to find out who is targeting them via anonymous accounts.

The law will give the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) the ability to issue a “demasking order” to force social media platforms to identify anonymous users.

“Hiding behind an anonymous account online should never mean you can vilify someone and get away with it,” Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen said in announcing the new law.

This new law follows the April 2026 introduction of stronger civil protections for people targeted with vilification because of a protected attribute, such as their race, religion, disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics or sexual orientation.

It also comes amid growing debate about when someone should be afforded anonymity offline.

As antisemitism adviser and former chief scientist Alan Finkel told the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week:

I do feel that the cloak of secrecy across our community, not just in universities, is possibly overused, especially if somebody has been found to have breached a code.

Making it easier to sue

Victoria will also introduce a new law to make it easier for families to sue social media platforms and AI providers for negligence causing psychiatric harm to a child.

Currently, there is a legal threshold requiring “proof of a permanent impairment of 10% or more” before a family can bring an action before the courts. The new law will remove that threshhold in cases brought on behalf of children.

In making this announcement, the government pointed to overseas courts that have already found platforms liable for designing addictive features aimed at children.

For example, in March 2026, a court in the United States found Meta and Google were negligent in the design of their platforms, Instagram and YouTube. The companies were ordered to pay millions to a young woman who argued the social media platforms exacerbated her mental health conditions.

The government said it will consider whether to extend similar protections to adults.

Read more:
Meta and Google just lost a landmark social media addiction case. A tech law expert explains the fallout

Several points of concern

These laws are not yet drafted, let alone implemented. So how they will work is not yet clear. The government’s announcement explains these laws “will be developed following targeted consultation with VCAT, the courts and other stakeholders”.

The time needed for consultation and to draft the laws may also prove challenging, with a state election set to be held in November. That leaves only a few weeks of sitting time for the government to pass these reforms ahead of the election.

The consultation period is also likely to raise several points of concern.

Some cyber security experts have criticised the proposal. For example, Susan McLean, a former Victorian police officer who now specialises in cyber safety, said it “highlights the Victorian government’s lack of understanding of the digital world”.

One key criticism is that the courts can already compel technology companies to identify anonymous users, with police able to access this information through social media platforms’ law enforcement portals.

But as Susan McLean acknowledged, many cases “go unreported [as] people don’t make a police report in the first place”.

While extending VCAT’s powers may facilitate the process for identifying anonymous users in civil cases, this still places the burden on consumers to sue technology companies.

This means the benefits of this new law may be beyond the reach of those who cannot afford to pursue litigation.

Another concern is how the law would be applied to users in other countries, or those who pretend to be outside of Victoria by using VPNs. It is also unclear whether technology companies would comply with the laws and what the consequences would be for non-compliance.

Is there a better alternative?

Even if these new laws are passed, consumers living in other states would not benefit from these reforms. Other states would need to introduce similar laws, or the federal government would need to pursue legislation at a federal level.

Victoria’s consultation process may open such discussions, as happened with Australia’s social media ban. That legislation was first put forward by South Australia. It later became national law when it was taken up at a federal level. The same could happen here.

Or it may be that Victoria’s proposed laws become unnecessary as the federal government has committed to introducing digital duty of care legislation.

This law would go further than current social media restrictions to hold technology companies to account for harmful content and design features. That could address both vilification and mental health concerns.

Digital duty of care legislation could protect Australians in every state, without the need for individuals and families to pursue costly and time-consuming litigation.

Whether or not Victoria’s laws are passed, they point to the need for additional regulations to make social media, AI, and other online spaces as safe as they can be for all Australians.