MEDIA | TheBrief

media, defamation & Privacy

ANNOUNCEMENT - The Brief reached a milestone with readership across 50 countries since launching the Founding Collection

No Gambling Ads in Live Sport, Stadiums or on Uniforms: Wagering Advertising From 1 January 2027

From 1 January 2027, the betting ads that have become a fixture of Australian sport will disappear from live sport coverage, from stadiums and from player uniforms, and will be cut back sharply on television, radio and online. Parliament passed the reform package on 19 August 2026, after the major parties struck a bipartisan deal in the final sitting days. The following three Bills make it up: the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026; the National Self-e

By Olivia Gebron

Bondi Icebergs founder Maurice Terzini, Nine and the new privacy tort

Bondi Icebergs founder Maurice Terzini has commenced proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against Nine Entertainment and his former wife, Emma Addams, in what could be the first substantial case invoking the newly legislated tort of serious invasion of privacy. According to the statement of claim, Terzini alleges that Addams disclosed private information to a journalist employed by Nine, which was subsequently broadcast on 60 Minutes and published in The Sydney Morning Herald

By Leah Mooney, Georgie Austin & Isabelle Ferrali

Social Media Defamation Law Australia: Can You Sue?

The governing legislation for Defamation in Victoria is the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) and corresponding Acts in other States and Territories. Defamation is the publication of material about a person which causes serious harm to an individual’s reputation, either professionally or personally. When this publication occurs online it’s usually called online or social media defamation. The publication can include communication to at least one third party and covers social media po

By Aly Deane

Social Media Defamation Law Australia: Can You Sue?

Think Before You Send: Why “Disappearing” Can Come Back to Haunt You

Gone are the days of simply texting or calling. Today, most of us communicate across multiple apps at once. Whether it’s Snapchat, WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram, Signal, Telegram or TikTok, it’s not unusual to have several conversations with the same person across different platforms. One feature that has become increasingly common is disappearing messages. Snapchat may have led the way, but now almost every platform offers some version of it. Even Instagram has “Vanish Mode

By Mickaela Mate

Serious invasion of privacy in Australia: First court decision under the new Privacy Act tort

Australia’s new statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy is already being tested in the courts. In Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396, the District Court of New South Wales delivered the first published decision considering the new statutory cause of action introduced by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) for serious invasion of privacy. While the decision relates to an interlocutory application rather than a final determination, it provides valuable guida

By Michael Finch & Darci Collins

Serious invasion of privacy in Australia: First court decision under the new Privacy Act tort

The brief - the new legal platform authored by legal professionals

The Brief is now live and Australia is the first international edition for this pioneering platform designed for the legal profession to author commentary and insights on the law and how those laws have been practiced within judicial environments. The Brief is a response to an evolving media landscape, combined with a growing problem in legal communications being, the difficulty qualified legal professionals and PR teams face in placing accurate contextually precise stories,

By CJ DORE

It’s Not Defamation. So How Did the ABC Just Get Gagged?

Most people assume that suing for defamation is the only way to stop a media outlet from publishing something about you. A lot of people also think that you can only do so if the story is false. In July 2026, the Supreme Court of NSW granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the ABC from using, disclosing or reproducing three professional athletes’ private group-chat messages. In this case, it relied mostly on the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence, rather tha

By Stewart O'Connell

How serious is "serious harm" in Australian defamation law?

Since the first stage reform to the Uniform Defamation Acts, defamation claims in Australia cannot succeed without satisfying a threshold element of "serious harm" (except in Western Australia). The legislation does not define the meaning of "serious harm". Against the background of a string of other recent decisions, the recent judgment of Latham v Greenwich [2026] FCAFC 82 has provided more certainty into how courts will interpret serious harm. Latham was an appeal from a

By Lindsey Cregan

determining serious harm could minimise defamation costs

Preliminary hearings to determine serious harm in defamation proceedings can be of clear benefit in minimising costs in defamation claims. However, defendants must act judiciously in applying for such hearings in all but the most trivial of claims. As illustrated in last year’s decision in Bottrill v Graham (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 221, a failed preliminary hearing will significantly add to, not reduce, the already high costs of defamation proceedings. Early serious harm determina

By Nathan Buck

Rebel with a Cause: The Assessment of Serious Harm in MacInnes v Wilson

The defamation proceedings between Charlotte MacInnes and Rebel Wilson have attracted a significant amount of media attention given the celebrities involved. From a legal perspective, Justice Raper’s decision serves as a useful example of how the court will approach the assessment of serious harm in defamation proceedings. Background In 2025, actress and musician Charlotte MacInnes commenced defamation proceedings against Rebel Wilson in connection with a series of social med

By Justine Munsie & Jak Yasuda

Shine Lawyers joins forces with leading US litigator Mark Lanier in social media harm investigation

Shine Lawyers is examining whether Australian children, young people and their families may have viable claims against Meta and other social media companies in relation to alleged harms experienced by children and young people linked to social media platform design and use. Shine Lawyers is investigating potential Australian legal action concerning the design, operation and promotion of social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, and alleged harms linked to thei

By Shine Lawyers