Can a Facebook Group Admin Be Liable for Members' Posts in Queensland?

A Facebook group admin who creates and moderates the group may be treated as a publisher of what members post, and the risk grows once the admin is told about a defamatory post and leaves it up. The High Court’s decision in Voller sets the starting point, with later defences shaping the outcome.

Understanding who counts as a publisher, when innocent dissemination may be available and what the December 2025 changes add helps admins manage a community group without carrying more risk than needed.

When an admin may be a publisher

In Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, the High Court held that media companies that created public Facebook pages and posted content were publishers of third party comments, because they facilitated and encouraged the comments.

Publication requires only participation in communicating the matter. Intention to publish the specific defamatory words is not required under that reasoning.

Group admins who create, run and moderate a group may be at risk as publishers of members’ posts, depending on the facts. How Voller applies to private community groups has not been fully settled, and the analysis is fact specific, including how the group is set up, how posting is controlled and what the admin does after a complaint.

Once an admin is told about a defamatory post and leaves it up, the risk increases. Prompt action after notice is therefore central to managing exposure.

Defences and the 2025 intermediary changes

Innocent dissemination (s 32) may be available to subordinate distributors who neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known the matter was defamatory, subject to its conditions. Whether an admin can rely on it depends on the role played, the level of control and what was known at the time.

From 26 December 2025 the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (Qld) gives digital intermediaries a defence for defamatory matter posted by a third party if they have an accessible complaints mechanism and take reasonable access prevention steps, before or within 7 days after receiving a complaint. The new rules apply to causes of action accruing after commencement. Earlier publications are governed by the old law. Whether a particular group admin counts as a digital intermediary depends on the facts, including whether the admin operates a relevant service and meets the statutory conditions.

Practical steps that reduce risk remain the same before and after the change.

• Clear group rules that prohibit defamatory posts and set out how complaints are handled.
• Pre-approval for new members or for posts that contain keywords associated with complaints.
• Keyword filters that flag posts for review before they go live.
• Prompt complaint and removal process with a dedicated contact and a log of action taken.
• Records of rules, moderation decisions and removals.

Example

A volunteer admin runs a suburb noticeboard group with 8,000 members. A member posts that a named local builder “committed fraud on my extension and should be jailed”. The builder emails the admin with a link and asks for removal. If the admin removes the post within hours, keeps the email, notes the time of removal and reminds members of the group rules, the risk is reduced. If the admin leaves the post up for a fortnight despite the complaint and later says the group was not moderated, the risk is higher and reliance on innocent dissemination or the new intermediary defence becomes more difficult.

See Also

• Defamation law in Queensland: the complete guide
• Community Facebook groups and defamation risk
• Defamation on social media
• What must a concerns notice contain?

This page provides general legal information only; it is not personal legal advice. Everyone’s situation is different, so please seek independent legal advice for your own circumstances.