AI Tracker
Australia

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) remains the primary framework for data protection and privacy in Australia, and it applies to organisations using AI. The regulatory landscape is evolving significantly:

• The OAIC has published a guide for businesses using commercially available AI products and a guide for developers using personal information to train generative AI models. The guides are designed to provide clarity about how the technology-neutral Privacy Act applies to AI and set out clear expectations for AI governance and privacy safeguards. 
• In 2023, the OAIC confirmed that the Privacy Act applies to foreign corporations carrying on business in Australia and found Clearview AI breached privacy principles by collecting facial images without consent.
• The Privacy Act is also in the process of being significantly reformed, with the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth) passing in November 2024. This tranche of reforms is the first of two tranches to follow the Attorney-General’s Privacy Act Review Report in 2022. These reforms introduce enhanced transparency requirements in privacy policies for automated decision-making, grant the Attorney-General power to direct the OAIC to conduct public inquiries and develop binding codes in the public interest, and creates a new tort for serious invasions of privacy.
• The second tranche of reforms, currently expected in 2025, is likely to be even broader than the first.

Australia’s intellectual property (IP) laws are technology-neutral but face challenges when applied to AI:

Copyright

• In September 2024, the Government published a report setting out the findings from the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group’s first information gathering exercise related to the use of copyright material as inputs into AI systems, to help inform the Government’s policy response to AI.
• Under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act), copyright subsists only in original works and subject matter created by a ‘qualified person’, being an Australian citizen or resident (with equivalent protection for works and subject matter created by persons from countries under certain international conventions). Where a work has been created using generative AI, copyright may only subsist to the extent it is possible to demonstrate that the work originates from a human author, which may exclude content which is entirely AI-generated.
• It is possible that the use of an AI system could give rise to copyright infringement, for example by reproducing a substantial part of a copyright-protected work either as part of the training of the system, or by the AI-generated output.
• The Productivity Commission report on Harnessing data and digital technology considers options for reform to improve productivity through use of AI. The Productivity Commission proposed a number of policy options on which submissions are invited, including copyright licensing schemes to facilitate revenue collection by copyright owners when works are used in AI-related activities, or amending the Copyright Act to include a fair dealing exception that would cover text and data mining. Our update on this report is here.
• In October 2025, the Government announced a consultation on possible changes to Australia's copyright law, ruling out a Text and Data Mining Exception. The Copyright and AI Reference Group is exploring whether a new paid collective licensing framework under the Copyright Act should be created, opportunities to clarify AI's interaction with copyright law, and avenues for less costly enforcement.

Patents

• The Australian courts have reaffirmed that only a natural person can be named as an inventor in a patent application (Commissioner of Patents v Thaler (2022) 289 FCR 45), rejecting the idea of AI systems as inventors.
• An example of patentability challenges includes the refusal of Accenture Global Solutions' AI-related patent application, where the invention was found to be an unpatentable business method rather than a "manner of manufacture" under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Re Accenture Global Solutions Ltd (2022) 175 IPR 266).

In Australia, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a number of protected attributes.

• These include age, disability, race, sex, intersex status, gender identity and sexual orientation in certain areas of public life, pursuant to federal legislation including the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).
• Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), if an employee can show that they possess a relevant attribute and that adverse action was taken against them, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that no unlawful bias or discrimination played a role in the decision to take the action. 
• The risk of discrimination may be heightened in circumstances where an AI system has been used to assist with decision making, by virtue of algorithmic bias resulting from an overrepresentation or underrepresentation of certain demographics in the data used to train the system, and this reverse onus of proof may be difficult to discharge due to the “black box” nature of many advanced AI systems.

In February 2026, the New South Wales Governmentpassed the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Bill 2025 targeted at ‘digital work systems’, (i.e. any algorithm, AI, automation, or online platform). The bill establishes a ‘primary duty of care’ for NSW businesses to ensure workers’ health and safety is not compromised by digital work systems.

Competition

• The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Australia’s national competition, consumer, fair trading and product safety regulator, confirmed in its Corporate Plan for 2024-25 that responding effectively to changes in the digital economy, including the risk of AI, remains a central focus.
• In 2022, the ACCC acted against Trivago for misleading advertising (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trivago N.V. (2020) 142 ACSR 338; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trivago N.V. (No 2) (2022) 159 ACSR 353). Trivago's website claimed to show the cheapest hotel rates, but its AI algorithm favoured sites that paid higher fees. The Federal Court found this violated sections 29(1)(i) and 34 of the ACL and fined Trivago $44.7 million

Consumer protection

• In October 2025, the Australian Government concluded a review of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) component of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) on the application of the ACL in relation to AI-enabled goods and services, which it defines as goods and services which involve a consumer directly interacting with an AI system. The review concluded that no changes were necessary to the ACL, which was already suitable in protecting protect consumers who use AI and supporting the safe and responsible use of AI by businesses when considered in combination with other relevant legal frameworks.
• Separately, the eSafety Commissioner is playing an increasingly prominent role in addressing online harms linked to AI, including generative AI, as evidenced by its statement setting out its position in relation to Generative AI and support for the Government’s proposed mandatory guidelines for high-risk AI. The eSafety Commissioner also supported the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) criminalising non-consensual deepfake material.
• In October 2025, the eSafety Commissioner issued legal notices to four major AI chatbot firms requiring them to demonstrate compliance with the Australian Government’s Basic Online Safety Expectations Determination (including taking steps to design systems that keep Australians, in particular children, safe). The Commissioner has indicated that the recently drafted eSafety industry codes designed to protect children would apply to AI chatbots with a failure to comply amounting to financial penalties and enforcement action.
• In November 2025, the eSafety Commissioner announced that a provider and three of the world's widely used 'nudify' services withdrew access in Australia following enforcement action.
• The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – the authority responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, radiocommunications and telecommunications in Australia – also published a submission broadly in support of the Government’s proposed mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI, but makes clear in the submissions that many of the guardrails set out the types of actions that the ACMA already expects its regulated entities to be taking, pursuant to legislation including the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) and the Spam Act 2003 (Cth).
• In February 2026, the ACMA updated the Commercial Radio Code of Practice to mandate commercial radio broadcasters to disclose when a synthetic AI voice is being used to host a regularly scheduled program or news broadcast.

Investment

• The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) – Australia's integrated corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator – has emphasised, including by way of a report published in October 2024 and comments made by ASIC Chair, Joe Longo, that many of the existing obligations that apply to the entities that it regulates are technology neutral such that entities need to ensure their use of AI does not breach any of these provisions. These include:
  • Obligations on Australian financial services licensees under the Corporations Act 2010 (Corporations Act) (Cth) and on Australian credit licensees pursuant to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), including the obligation to provide services efficiently, honestly and fairly and have adequate systems in place to ensure compliance.
  • Directors’ duties under the Corporations Act, including the duty to act in good faith and with a reasonable degree of care and diligence. The obligation not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or make false or misleading representations as prohibited by the Corporations Act and the Australia Securities and Investments Commissions Act 2001 (Cth), is relevant where an entity engages in “AI washing” (for example, by overstating their use of AI).