Digital platform complaint handling

One of the recommendations made by the ACCC in the Digital Platforms Inquiry in 2019 was for a Digital Platforms Ombudsman, possibly expanding the role of the existing Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. This had less attention than other recommendations, but the idea received some support in the former Coalition Government’s policy response.  

Is it viable? Building on our previous work on digital platforms and on disinformation, our research focusses on external dispute resolution and the establishment of an ombudsman. We narrowed the focus to social media platforms, commencing with the nature or type of possible complaints. We looked at how these are handled by the leading social media service in Australia – Facebook – where different policies apply according to the type of user activity. We then looked at existing external mechanisms to handle those complaints, and finally at options for an external complaint handling scheme, were government to mandate such an arrangement.   

Our research shows the appeal of a single channel for external dispute resolution might need to give way to a more pragmatic approach that builds on existing complaints channels.  It would be possible for an expanded TIO to handle some types of digital platform complaints, but other complaints would still likely fall between the gaps.  And by adding the TIO to the existing set of bodies that have some role in digital platform regulation – without giving it comprehensive coverage – could add to existing user confusion on where to take a complaint.  

One possible solution we identified for addressing this confusion is to give the TIO jurisdiction over some matters while also establishing a clearing house for any escalated complaints about digital platforms. The clearing house would act as a referral and tracking service to help users identify the right home for their complaint, while also monitoring the volume of complaints and some aspects of industry performance.  

This report was written by Holly Raiche, Derek Wilding, Karen Lee, and Anita Stuhmcke. Additional research by Susanne Lloyd-Jones, Ayesha Jehangir, Michael Davis and Vidya Kathirgamalingam. Report design and production by Rosa Alice. 

Download PDF:

Our research was partly funded by a research grant from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. The operation of ACCAN is made possible by funding provided by the Commonwealth of Australia under section 593 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. This funding is recovered from charges on telecommunications carriers.