Proposed Australian Privacy Principle 14 would require a large digital platform that holds personal information relating to an individual to destroy that information when the individual requests it.

APP 14.1 states:

"If an organisation that is a large digital platform holds personal information that relates to an individual, the organisation must, on request by the individual, destroy the information."

Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026, Schedule 4, proposed APP 14.1

No. APP 14.1 applies whenever a large digital platform "holds personal information" relating to the person making the request. It is not expressly confined to information uploaded by that person.

This means a request could potentially extend to posts, photographs, criticism or warnings published by other users.

No. The proposed definition of personal information expressly applies:

"whether the information or opinion is true or not".

Truthful information identifying a person can therefore fall within the proposed right to erasure.

Exposure Draft, Schedule 1, proposed s 6FD

Potentially. The exposure draft expressly includes a person's "criminal record" within the definition of sensitive information.

APP 14 does not contain an express exception protecting truthful discussion of criminal convictions, public safety warnings or reporting about previous misconduct.

A platform would have to assess whether one of the limited exceptions in APP 14.2 or 14.3 applied.

Yes. The right is not limited to private individuals. The draft contains no express exception for politicians, public officials, political communication, satire or criticism of government.

A politician could therefore make a destruction request concerning posts containing their name, image, statements, political positions or other personal information. Whether the material remained online would depend on the platform's assessment of the statutory exceptions.

The draft protects information that the platform itself is legally required to retain under an Australian law or court or tribunal order.

It does not expressly protect social media posts that report, quote, link to or discuss a publicly available judgment. Nor does it protect public legal databases like Austlii.

The judgment might remain public while discussion identifying the person involved could still become the subject of an erasure request.

Yes, but only on the narrow grounds provided by the draft.

APP 14.2 excludes requests that are "frivolous or vexatious". APP 14.3 also provides exceptions where:

• a permitted general situation exists (this is narrow in relation to private companies);
• a permitted health situation exists (this is unlikely for a social media platform or website);
• Australian law or a court or tribunal order requires retention;
• destruction remains technically impossible or infeasible after reasonable steps (unlikely, unless they put their posts on a blockchain); or
• the information is strictly necessary to provide goods or services requested by the individual whose personal information it is.

There is no express exception for journalism, political communication, court reporting, historical archives, public figures, public-interest warnings or truthful criticism. Provided the information is 'held' by the platform, deletion can be successfully demanded by whoever is identified in a given post or article.

The platform decides in the first instance, but on pain of legal action against them if they refuse.

APP 14.4 requires the platform to assess whether APP 14.1 applies and destroy the information to the extent that it does. If information is retained, APP 14.5 generally requires the platform to give reasons and identify the available complaint mechanisms.

This would place private technology companies in the position of deciding whether public-interest speech about an individual should remain available.

Yes. The application provision states that APP 14 would apply to information held after commencement:

"regardless of whether the information was acquired or created before, on or after that commencement."

The proposed right could therefore reach years of existing social media posts, photographs, allegations, reporting and public controversy.

Exposure Draft, Schedule 4, item 12

The regime would apply to social media services, relevant electronic services and designated internet services that satisfy the proposed definition of a "large digital platform".

A platform would qualify if its business group had at least $500 million in gross revenue in the previous financial year, it averaged at least 2.5 million Australian end users, or it was prescribed by regulation. But this does not mean accounts, so an anonymous user might be counted many times.

Because the proposal could allow people to seek a digitally sanitised public history.

Politicians, public officials, convicted offenders, professionals and corporate leaders could request the destruction of posts recording embarrassing statements, criminal convictions, litigation, misconduct or institutional failures.

Privacy protections should not become a mechanism for wiping away truthful criticism or information that the public has a legitimate interest in accessing.

At the least, the legislation should contain clear and express protections for:

• journalism;
• political communication;
• court reporting;
• historical and public archives;
• discussion of public figures and public officials;
• public-interest and public-safety warnings; and
• truthful criticism and reporting.

The decision should not depend entirely on whether a private platform is prepared to defend the continued publication of controversial material.

No. Strong privacy protections can coexist with freedom of speech.

People should be able to protect genuinely private information without acquiring a general power to suppress truthful reporting, criticism, public records or warnings published by other people.