Administrative law and digital platforms regulation
🔍 Introduction
In the digital age, digital platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter (X), TikTok, and YouTube exert immense influence over public communication, commerce, and data. Governments worldwide are increasingly regulating these platforms to address concerns such as:
Misinformation and disinformation
Hate speech and online harm
Privacy violations and data misuse
Market dominance and anti-competitive behavior
Administrative law plays a critical role in shaping and enforcing this regulation. It ensures that government agencies and regulators exercise their powers lawfully, reasonably, and fairly when dealing with digital platforms.
⚖️ Core Administrative Law Principles in Regulating Digital Platforms
Legality – Agencies must act within the scope of their statutory powers.
Procedural fairness – Platforms must be given notice and a chance to respond before enforcement action.
Reasonableness / Proportionality – Regulatory action must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Accountability and transparency – Regulatory decisions must be open to judicial review.
Consistency with human rights – Decisions must respect rights such as freedom of expression and privacy.
📚 Key Case Law Involving Administrative Law and Digital Platforms Regulation
Below are more than five important cases from various jurisdictions that illustrate how administrative law interacts with the regulation of digital platforms:
🧑⚖️ 1. Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435 (Australia)
Facts:
The ACCC alleged that Google was responsible for misleading ads in its search results, in breach of the Trade Practices Act.
Held:
The High Court held that Google was not liable for third-party advertisements because it did not create the content — it only displayed it.
Administrative Law Relevance:
This case clarified the limits of regulatory power over digital platforms and emphasized that regulators must act within legal boundaries and clearly identify the responsible party before taking enforcement action.
🧑⚖️ 2. Facebook Inc v Australian Information Commissioner [2023] FCAFC 9
Facts:
Facebook challenged the Commissioner’s jurisdiction to investigate data breaches connected to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, affecting Australian users.
Held:
The court confirmed that the Privacy Commissioner had jurisdiction under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to regulate the activities of foreign companies operating in Australia when they collect data of Australian citizens.
Administrative Law Relevance:
This case affirmed the extra-territorial reach of administrative powers and reinforced the principle of lawful jurisdictional authority under administrative law when regulating global digital platforms.
🧑⚖️ 3. Netchoice, LLC v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022) (USA – Texas)
Facts:
Texas passed a law prohibiting large social media companies from removing content based on political viewpoint. Digital platforms challenged it as unconstitutional.
Held:
The 5th Circuit upheld the law, stating platforms are not entitled to editorial discretion like traditional publishers.
Administrative Law Relevance:
Though primarily a constitutional case, it illustrates state-level administrative regulation of digital platforms, and the tension between regulatory enforcement and freedom of expression. It raises questions about the limits of regulatory discretion and the need for administrative agencies to consider constitutional rights when enforcing content moderation laws.
🧑⚖️ 4. Twitter Inc v Taamneh (US Supreme Court, 2023)
Facts:
Plaintiffs alleged that Twitter facilitated terrorism by allowing extremist content, violating anti-terrorism laws.
Held:
The US Supreme Court found that Twitter could not be held liable under these facts, as there was no direct causation or intent.
Administrative Law Relevance:
Although not a direct administrative law case, it reinforces the idea that enforcement action against platforms must be precise and evidence-based, aligning with the administrative principle of rationality and proportionality.
🧑⚖️ 5. Ireland v Facebook (Schrems II) – CJEU, Case C-311/18 (2020)
Facts:
Privacy activist Max Schrems challenged Facebook’s data transfers from the EU to the US, arguing they violated EU privacy laws.
Held:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) struck down the EU-US Privacy Shield agreement, ruling that US surveillance laws failed to protect EU citizens' rights.
Administrative Law Relevance:
This case has major implications for data protection regulators across Europe. It illustrates how administrative decisions must align with fundamental rights and that data privacy enforcement must comply with international legal standards.
🧑⚖️ 6. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2021)
Facts:
ACMA took enforcement action against TPG for failing to comply with spam regulations by sending marketing messages without proper consent.
Held:
TPG was found to have breached the Spam Act 2003 (Cth) and was fined.
Administrative Law Relevance:
Demonstrates how administrative agencies can enforce digital communication laws, provided that procedures are followed, notices are issued, and penalties are proportionate and authorised by statute.
🧑⚖️ 7. R (Open Rights Group) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 800 (UK)
Facts:
Open Rights Group challenged a UK government policy allowing bulk data retention by communication service providers.
Held:
The Court of Appeal ruled the policy incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly privacy rights.
Administrative Law Relevance:
Showed that administrative data surveillance decisions must be compatible with human rights, subject to judicial review, and grounded in clear legislative authority.
🧩 Legal and Policy Challenges in Digital Platform Regulation
Administrative Law Faces Key Questions:
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Jurisdictional limits | Can domestic regulators control global platforms? |
| Transparency and accountability | Are administrative enforcement decisions clear and reviewable? |
| Balancing rights | How to reconcile freedom of expression with online harm regulation? |
| Procedural fairness | Are platforms given notice and chance to respond before being sanctioned? |
| Enforcement mechanisms | Are remedies proportionate and legally authorised? |
🔧 Recent Legislative and Regulatory Trends
Australia:
Online Safety Act 2021 – Powers to compel platforms to remove harmful content
News Media Bargaining Code – Compels platforms to pay news publishers
EU:
Digital Services Act (DSA) – Requires platforms to manage illegal content, ensure transparency, and provide complaint mechanisms
USA:
Debates around reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides liability protections for platforms
📌 Conclusion
Administrative law is central to the regulation of digital platforms, ensuring that public authorities act lawfully, fairly, and transparently. As governments globally confront the challenges of regulating Big Tech, administrative law provides the legal framework for accountability—balancing state power with the rights of private entities and the public.
✅ Summary of Case Law:
| Case | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| Google v ACCC (2013) | Legality and responsibility for third-party content |
| Facebook v Info Commissioner (2023) | Jurisdiction and cross-border regulation |
| Netchoice v Paxton (2022) | Free speech and regulatory limits |
| Twitter v Taamneh (2023) | Causation and evidentiary standards |
| Schrems II (2020) | International data protection and fundamental rights |
| ACMA v TPG (2021) | Procedural compliance and enforcement |
| Open Rights Group (2021) | Data surveillance and compatibility with rights |
RELATED Blog
0 comments