Australia: Big Tech weaponises its platforms against the government

Big Tech companies(opens in new window) , including Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon, are well established in Australia and pull in roughly AUD 26.7 billion annually, mostly through advertising, devices, software, e-commerce, and cloud services. In the past decade, Australian authorities have tried to regulate the power of these companies and their impact on the public through laws such as the New Media Bargaining Code, the Privacy Act, and guardrails for AI. Big Tech has fought them every step of the way.

While lobbying transparency(opens in new window) in Australia is weak, Big Tech’s aggressive influence is hard to hide. We spoke to three experts who have been defending digital rights and monitoring Big Tech’s lobbying in Australia. What they observed underlines how tenacious the Big Tech lobby machine is, and how these companies flex their power over key communication platforms to get what they want.

No bargaining power: Big Tech versus Australian news media

In 2019, Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (opens in new window) published a landmark report with a clear conclusion: Google and Facebook have substantial market and bargaining power; and Australian news outlets depend on them for traffic but cannot negotiate fair payment for their content. The ACCC recommended that Australia needed a regulatory intervention to address the power imbalance and protect the sustainability of news. This is where the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code(opens in new window) , the world’s first law that obliges digital platforms like Google and Facebook to pay publishers for hosting their content, began.

For the Australian government, it seemed like a political win: hold Big Tech accountable and support domestic media and journalists. Google and Meta had other ideas.

In an interview with SOMO, a researcher who was involved in the legislative process explained that “this code was a threat to their business model, which is what they were very sensitive about, and they were afraid other countries could copy it.”

The companies certainly did not pull their punches. They openly threatened to leave or suspend their services in Australia if the code was passed. The claims and threats made by Google and Facebook over the News Media Bargaining Code were amplified by a tool no other companies have access to: unfettered use of their own massive platforms.

We can turn off the country’s news!

In August 2020(opens in new window) , Australians logging into Google were met with a warning banner at the top of the search page with a link to an open letter:

Given that 94 per cent of Australians use Google as their main search engine, this was a direct lobbying message inserted into the monopolistic platform itself.

Google(opens in new window) also claimed that the proposed code “would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube”, adding further threats, including that regulation “could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia”. Google repeated this narrative in a letter to YouTubers(opens in new window) , saying that they “could receive fewer views and earn less”.

Australia’s consumer and competition authority, the ACCC(opens in new window) , hit back, calling out the company’s claims as “misinformation”, and making clear that “Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube” and it “will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so”. Google persisted with its scaremongering tactics. In January 2021, the company’s Managing Director in Australia and New Zealand, Mel Silva, told a parliamentary hearing(opens in new window) that, if the code passed, Google would stop making Google Search available in Australia.

Facebook used(opens in new window) the same narrative and dire warnings. In an August 2020 open letter(opens in new window) , Facebook said if the code became law, it would “reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram,” describing this as “the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector”.

The official condemnation of using misinformation tactics did not stop the companies. On the contrary, Facebook became even more aggressive, recalled the researcher we spoke to. Days before the Code’s final vote, on 18 February 2021(opens in new window) , the company blocked news content and a broad range of information pages in Australia. Overnight(opens in new window) , pages like the state health departments, the Bureau of Meteorology, and domestic violence support centres went dark. For a week(opens in new window) , millions of Australians were cut off from crucial information(opens in new window) .

“It was the height of bushfire season and the early stages of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout”, explained the researcher. “What Facebook categorised as news to remove from the platform was wide and wild. The Australian public was understandably nervous, and upset. They wanted their news back. So this act had its intended effect.”

The blackout was deliberately chaotic. Although Facebook claimed that blocking non-news sites was accidental, a whistleblower(opens in new window) leak later revealed that the company had intentionally sought to make the ban as broad and disruptive as possible to maximise(opens in new window) its leverage in the Code’s negotiations.

Facebook’s shutdown worked. The government amended(opens in new window) the bill within a week.

The changes meant the code would no longer automatically require platforms like Facebook to negotiate fair payments with Australian publishers. Instead, it allows for voluntary agreements, based on individual deals, under which news outlets are paid for their content. This measure gave back significant negotiating power to the tech giants.

The final version of the law also gave companies a 30-day notice period if they were required to negotiate with publishers. “That meant if the government ever tried to enforce the Code on Google and Facebook, they would have a full month to mount another lobbying campaign and threaten withdrawal from Australia”, the researcher explained.

“The News Media Bargaining Code that passed was far weaker than the one that was proposed because Facebook proved it could turn off a country.”

Facebook’s news blackout is a textbook case of weaponising the structural power of the platform: flip a switch, make news disappear, then negotiate. After the government changed(opens in new window) the bill, Facebook restored the news.

Personal privacy versus corporate ‘innovation’

Australia’s data protection laws long predate the advent of Big Tech’s dominance of the digital economy. This meant the laws were largely inadequate to address the new models of data exploitation, from surveillance advertising to AI training. In 2020, at a time when Big Tech’s data empires could no longer be ignored, Australia moved to revise its Privacy Act. Google and many other tech giants were, by then, well established in the country. They made their presence felt.

We spoke to John Pane, the Chair of the digital rights group Electronic Frontiers Australia, to dissect Big Tech lobby tactics around the Privacy Act.

Even before the official proposals were made public, Big Tech was pushing the narrative that too much privacy would stifle innovation, says Pane. Microsoft(opens in new window) made the self-interested pronouncement that “the protection of privacy must also be balanced against needs for growth and innovation,” while Facebook(opens in new window) claimed some proposals could “limit the benefits of innovation to Australian small businesses and consumers […]”.

By the time the proposals were made public in 2023, OpenAI had launched ChatGPT, and the hype around AI had picked up a head of steam. The future was AI, and countries that did not get on board would be left behind. This belief, treated as fact by many industry players and government officials, became a powerful new strand of the Big Tech lobbying narrative. (See also the EU and US cases).

Big Tech fanned the flames of the AI hype, arguing that any obstacles to its advancement were tantamount to a self-inflicted wounding of the national economy. Limiting the use of personal data for training AI models, or having to disclose when personal data is used for automated decision-making, would hinder productivity and prosperity, they argued. The Technology Council of Australia (TCA)(opens in new window) , an industry association whose co-founders(opens in new window) include Microsoft and Google and now represents companies (opens in new window) including Apple, Amazon, and OpenAI, summed up the Big Tech case: regulation should avoid “unnecessary barriers to innovation and growth in the digital economy.” But “unnecessary” for whom?

Pane explains: “This narrative is rooted in the myth of technological exceptionalism”. Big Tech pushes the idea that its products are unlike any other industry and therefore should not face normal scrutiny or regulation. It serves as a powerful shield that legitimises special treatment and helps Big Tech avoid accountability for the social, economic, and political harms their technologies may cause.

“Big Tech companies use what I call pixie dust to enchant government representatives and the public, to paint a beautiful utopia that Big Tech companies and their technology will bring to society”, says Pane.

Big Tech’s ability to bamboozle policymakers with pixie dust is reinforced by the army of industry associations and other organisations which the companies support. As Australia’s review of privacy issues unfolded, the TCA was joined by the Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA),(opens in new window) whose members include Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, the Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI),(opens in new window) representing companies such as Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, and the Business Software Alliance(opens in new window) (BSA), with a membership that boasts Microsoft and OpenAI. All of these bodies, and more, were active in the policy debate and the positions they advanced aligned with the interests of their Big Tech members.

During the review of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024, AIIA(opens in new window) made a submission that echoed Big Tech’s positions, arguing for a narrower definition of targeted advertising. DIGI defended(opens in new window) the industry’s surveillance-based business model and opposed a direct right of action for users. BSA(opens in new window) , which works globally and has aligned with positions of its Big Tech members in the US and EU, urged the Australian government to keep the definition of personal information narrow and to ensure that the law “enhances cross-border transfers with Australia”, language that directly serves the interests of large multinational tech firms.

Big Tech influence works “like an octopus”, says Pane, “through a big network of lobbying. With their phenomenally deep pockets and swimming pools full of cash, their tentacles are everywhere.”

SOMO wrote to AIIA and BSA about their work around the privacy legislation. AIIA stated that it represents a diverse membership and that the organisation’s policy positions “are developed through broad consultation”. AIIA also stated that “While our submission on the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 may have aligned with the views of some large technology firms, this reflects shared perspectives on regulatory impacts rather than advocacy on behalf of any individual members.” BSA also pointed to the diversity of its membership and noted that its comments on the privacy law “are consistent both in calling for the facilitation of responsible data transfers, which have significant benefits for businesses of all sizes(opens in new window) .” TCA similarly noted that it “represents a broad and diverse membership across the technology ecosystem” and “our advocacy is focused on ensuring that regulation supports both safety and the growth of the digital economy.” Their full responses are available here.

The government’s final position, made public in September 2023, was a mixed bag(opens in new window) . There was some increased protection of a user’s ability to know how their data is used, including for automated decision-making, and to sue the companies in case of wrongdoing. However, the government refused to make it a right for people to opt out of surveillance-based advertising.

By this point, the discussion on how to regulate AI had taken on another dimension.

Big Tech’s AI race warning: regulate and lose

Months after the revision of Australia’s privacy laws, the government proposed(opens in new window) mandatory guardrails for AI systems that can harm individuals or communities. The guardrails (opens in new window) would introduce safety testing, as well as transparency and accountability requirements, for developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. Big Tech quickly mobilised to push back against the new regulations, especially to ensure that GPT-style models would not be included.

We interviewed a digital rights researcher who has spent most of the past decade observing the tech industry to unpack Big Tech’s lobby tactics.

Pushing the ‘over-regulation’ narrative

Big Tech’s core narrative was economic. The companies have succeeded globally in framing the development and use of AI as the key to nations’ future economic prosperity. Regulation is consistently framed as a barrier to innovation with dire economic consequences for those countries that dare to “over-regulate” (i.e., regulate in any way that threatens the business model).

In August 2024, as the government was about to launch its proposal, Google’s President of Global Affairs, Kent Walker, spoke at an event on AI organised by the Australian National University, where he specifically warned about the over-regulation of AI. In a social media post(opens in new window) , Walker explained that he had also met with Australian policymakers and delivered a message on how to “stay ahead in AI competition”.

The “AI is vital for the economy and regulation kills innovation” narrative has been relentlessly deployed, as discussions on the mandatory guardrails have dragged on. And Big Tech’s lobbying was again augmented by numerous industry bodies and directly funded organisations.

These include groups that were active on the reform of the Privacy Act, such as Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI(opens in new window) ), the Technology Council of Australia (TCA)(opens in new window) , and the Business Software Alliance (BSA(opens in new window) ), as well as the Information Technology Industry Council(opens in new window) , whose members(opens in new window) include Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI; The Center for Data Innovation(opens in new window) , part of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF),(opens in new window) a US entity that describes itself as independent and non-partisan but is nonetheless supported by companies including Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft; the Business Council of Australia(opens in new window) , whose members(opens in new window) include Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft; the Australian Digital Alliance(opens in new window) , whose members include Meta and Google; and the US Chamber of Commerce(opens in new window) .

DIGI(opens in new window) , for instance, quoted research that estimated widespread AI adoption could add “$170 billion to $600 billion a year to Australia’s GDP by 2030” and then warned that national regulations will directly “influence the ability for [sic] Australia to access these opportunities and remain competitive on the global stage”. DIGI strongly recommended that not all general-purpose AI should be categorised as high-risk, and called for “further regulatory analysis” and voluntary measures to be considered too.

Responding to SOMO, DIGI stated that “our comments on general-purpose AI and risk classification were not an attempt to shield high-risk use cases from regulation. Rather, our concern was that the definition proposed … would inadvertently capture low-risk applications (such as customer service chat bots) and would not align with the stated policy objective of targeting genuinely high-risk scenarios.” DIGI’s full response can be seen here.

This approach echoes that of Amazon(opens in new window) , Microsoft(opens in new window) , Meta(opens in new window) , and Google(opens in new window) . By contrast, the independent Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) advocated(opens in new window) that the guardrails should, in fact, be strengthened and applied to all GPAI models. According to its response “The severity and impact of the risks from GPAI (…) are potentially catastrophic for individuals and human societies: these systems can “facilitate the development of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; enable offensive cyber attacks; aid deception and obfuscation; and generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) of real individuals.”

ITIF responded to SOMO, including on issues raised in other articles in this series, and the substance of their response is reflected in the EU article, while their full response is available here. ITIF stated that “As an independent think tank, we maintain complete editorial independence and control over all our work” and that they did not advocate or lobby at the behest of its funders.

Big Tech’s multiple memberships of industry bodies give them multiple avenues to reach policymakers and add to the already considerable lobby access they have. But it does not stop there. As we saw in the EU case, Big Tech also funds research by consultancies that is then used in its own lobbying. For example, in its submissions, Microsoft(opens in new window) cited two studies(opens in new window) from the TCA to back up its argument that AI could add up to 200,000 jobs and “AUD 115 billion annually to the Australian economy by 2030.” Both the TCA and the research report were funded by Microsoft. Microsoft had also paid for the research that DIGI(opens in new window) quoted above.

As the guardrails process was ongoing, another tech heavyweight made its presence felt. In July 2025, OpenAI – the owner of ChatGPT – presented its “AI in Australia: An Economic Blueprint(opens in new window) ” at an event(opens in new window) organised by Sydney’s University of Technology. The paper pushes a pro-innovation and pro-growth narrative, claiming that Australia suffers from weak productivity compared to the US. The subliminal message: if Australia wants prosperity, don’t regulate AI too heavily.

The researcher SOMO spoke to, who was at the event, recalled the venue being filled with senior bureaucrats, elected representatives, business lobbyists, and think-tank analysts, listening as OpenAI executives promised affluence through rapid adoption of AI. The researcher observed how carefully the stage was managed: “The entire conversation started from OpenAI’s narrative. At the event, AI was treated as the next steam engine, a magic force that would transform the economy, and regulation was treated as a threat to progress”.

By the end of the year, the government had dropped(opens in new window) its intention to regulate the worst harms of AI and instead started developing a National AI Strategy. A move described by the opposition as prioritising “corporate profits over community rights”.

Three tactics that shaped Australia’s laws

The battles over the News Media Bargaining Code, the Privacy Act, and AI guardrails reveal three key elements of Big Tech’s global playbook: the companies’ ability and willingness to weaponise their own massive platforms for lobbying; the use of economic scaremongering narratives that position public safety regulation as likely to leave a country like Australia behind in the AI race; and the ability of Big Tech to make its message and narrative pervasive via a web of organisations and industry bodies that receive financial benefit from the companies.