Federal Court of Australia Practice Note on Generative AI in Proceedings

The Federal Court of Australia released a new Practice Note on the use of Generative AI in proceedings before the Court. It outlines the Court's expectations, highlights potential benefits of Generative AI, and sets clear guidance on responsible use, accountability and disclosure obligations. It identifies areas where particular caution is required, including pleadings, submissions, evidence and confidential material.

Official materialJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·TransparencyOfficial source · fedcourt.gov.au ↗

01 APR 2026 · Standard / Framework

Guidance on assessing application of online safety codes and standards

On 1 April 2026, the eSafety Commissioner published guidance on assessing the application of online safety codes and standards under the Online Safety Act 2021 to help electronic service providers assess which online safety codes and standards apply to their services in respect of unlawful and age-restricted material. As the first step, providers must confirm they offer an electronic service or manufacture or supply related equipment. As the second step, providers must identify whether they o...

Official materialContent ModerationOfficial source · esafety.gov.au ↗

26 MAR 2026 · Executive Order

Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026

On 26 March 2026, the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Amendment Rules 2026 entered into force, setting out the platform features that trigger age-restriction obligations. The instrument amends the 2025 Rules to specify that an electronic service is classified as an age-restricted social media platform if it includes a recommender feature or a logged-in feature, such as infinite scrolling feeds, user feedback mechanisms like “likes”, or time-limited ephemeral content. The...

Primary legal sourceConsumer ProtectionOfficial source · legislation.gov.au ↗

25 MAR 2026 · Working Paper

Global Privacy Enforcement Network's inquiry into children's privacy practices on websites and applications

On 25 March 2026, the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) published a sweep report examining children's privacy practices across 876 websites and applications. The inquiry found that, while age assurance use has increased since 2015, 88% of platforms relied solely on easily circumvented self-declaration methods. It also highlighted that data collection has intensified, with 85% of privacy policies disclosing third-party data sharing, up from 51% a decade ago. It also found that only 56%...

Secondary evidenceNational StrategyIssuing institution: Issuing authority not identified

24 MAR 2026 · International Agreement

European Union-Australia Free Trade Agreement

On 24 March 2026, the European Union and Australia concluded negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which includes provisions on digital trade. The agreement prohibits unjustified data localisation requirements, enabling cross-border data flows while preserving personal data and privacy protection. It also removes certain distinctions between online and offline trade, prohibits customs duties on electronic transmissions, and includes provisions on source code, electronic contracts, an...

Primary legal sourceNational StrategyOfficial source · ec.europa.eu ↗

23 MAR 2026 · Other

Updated Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules System Program Requirements

On 23 March 2026, the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) Forum updated the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules System Program Requirements (PRs). The PRs apply to organisations seeking certification under the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules System (CBPR System). The PRs increase from 50 to 57 requirements and update 3 existing requirements. The PRs set requirements under the Preventing Harm principle of the Global CBPR Privacy Framework, including obligations for processing sensitive da...

Secondary evidenceNational StrategyIssuing institution: Issuing authority not identified

23 MAR 2026 · Working Paper

eSafety Commissioner assessment of Character Technologies (character.ai) regarding compliance with Basic Online Safety Expectations

On 23 March 2026, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner published interim findings concerning Character Technologies (character.ai) compliance with Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE). In response to a notice requesting information regarding BOSE compliance issued 16 October 2025, Character Technologies reported that it had made or intended to make improvements to child safety. Such improvements include age assurance mechanisms, restricting access to open-ended chat with AI companions, and imp...

Official materialContent ModerationOfficial source · esafety.gov.au ↗

20 MAR 2026 · Law / Act

NSW AI Workplace Laws 2026

New South Wales introduced AI workplace laws in 2026 providing new obligations for employers using digital tools and AI in the workplace, focusing on safety, accountability, and risk management.

Secondary evidenceState Legislation ·Workplace AI ·SafetyIssuing institution: Issuing authority not identified

19 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Jenson & Lockridge (No 2)

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | AI amalgamated disparate legal principles into the appellant's Summary of Argument and oral submissions, producing repetitive and uncontextualised appellate phrases relied on at hearing. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Appeal dismissed.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 1540 AUD

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Federal Circuit and Family Court

18 MAR 2026 · Other

European Union-Australia Security and Defence Partnership

On 18 March 2026, the European Union (EU) and Australia signed the Security and Defence Partnership. The agreement establishes a framework for the two parties to exchange expertise on their respective cybersecurity frameworks and share information to prevent, deter, and respond to malicious cyber activities. The agreement includes provisions for regular consultations on artificial intelligence (AI), including its responsible use in security and defence contexts. Furthermore, the parties will ...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · eeas.europa.eu ↗

18 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Edmonds v Barrington Winstanley Group

Lawyer appeared before the SC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicants' written submissions cited a non-existent High Court authority; Court noted the citation did not correspond to any such case and directed it to a different case. Outcome: Warning.

Court: SC New South WalesParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: SC New South Wales

17 MAR 2026 · Policy / Guidance

Privacy guidance on age assurance technologies

On 17 March 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) released privacy guidance on age assurance technologies aimed at organisations and public authorities subject to the Privacy Act (APP entities) that are considering implementing systems involving the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information. The guidance is intended to support compliance with the Privacy Principles (APPs) and to help both regulated entities and third-party providers assess and manage ...

Official materialConsumer ProtectionOfficial source · oaic.gov.au ↗

16 MAR 2026 · Court Case

GSA v. Department of Communities

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the SC Western Australia. False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant read an AI-generated quotation he attributed to s 14(1)(b) Criminal Appeals Act; judge found the quotation inaccurate, called AI 'deceptive', and required source disclosure.

Court: SC Western AustraliaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: SC Western Australia

10 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Nicole Levey-Wilson v The Trustee for Attivita Group Unit Trust

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Fair Work Commission. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant's submission referenced s.341(1)(c)(ii); Commissioner found the reference appeared AI-generated and nonsensical in context. Outcome: Application dismissed..

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Fair Work Commission

06 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Malik v Insurance Australia Limited

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant alleged the plaintiff's filings contained hallucinated/cited cases that do not exist; court noted instances of fabricated case law though specific fabricated citations were not identified in reasons. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant alleged the plaintiff misquoted public documents and misapplied legal principle in submissions.

Court: D. New South WalesParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. New South Wales

05 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Oberoi v. Douglas

Fabricated: Case Law | 7 fabricated authorities || False Quotes: Case Law | 12 false quotes.

Court: CA VictoriaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA Victoria

05 MAR 2026 · Court Case

ELG20 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's written submissions cited numerous fictitious cases; Minister identified the fictitious citations and the Court declined to reproduce them. || False Quotes: Case Law | Applicant ascribed quotations to an existing case (SZATV) that do not appear in that case; Court noted the misattribution.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se LitigantTool: ChatGPT; OpenAI

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: Federal Circuit and Family Court

04 MAR 2026 · Executive Order

Cyber Security Rules 2025 for Smart Devices

On 4 March 2026, the Cyber Security (Security Standards for Smart Devices) Rules 2025, covering consumer-grade smart devices enter into force. The rules establish mandatory security standards for consumer-grade connectable products acquired in Australia, excluding smartphones, tablets, desktop and laptop computers, road vehicles and components, and therapeutic goods. Manufacturers must ensure that each device has a unique password or user-defined credentials, and that passwords are not based ...

Primary legal sourceNational StrategyOfficial source · legislation.gov.au ↗

03 MAR 2026 · Other

Global Coalition on Telecommunications' 6G security and resilience principles

On 3 March 2026, the telecommunications authorities from Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States adopted the Global Coalition on Telecommunications' 6G security and resilience principles. The principles outline security and resilience considerations that should be incorporated from the early stages of network design, standardisation, and deployment to ensure that 6G infrastructure functions safely and reliably as critical digital infrastructure. The principles reco...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · soumu.go.jp ↗

27 FEB 2026 · Law / Act

Privacy guidance for reporting entities under Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act

On 27 February 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner released privacy guidance for reporting entities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act). The guidance explains the application of the Privacy Act 1988 to reporting entities and authorised agents when handling personal information for the purposes of, or in connection with, AML/CTF obligations. It clarifies that reporting entities, including small businesses with an annual...

Primary legal sourceNational StrategyOfficial source · oaic.gov.au ↗

26 FEB 2026 · Law / Act

eSafety Commissioner evaluation of Social Media Minimum Age under Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024

On 26 February 2026, the eSafety Commissioner commenced an evaluation of Australia’s social media minimum age to assess implementation of the new obligation on platforms and its impacts on children. The evaluation concerns the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which commenced on 10 December 2025 and requires age-restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account, with preliminary ...

Primary legal sourceConsumer ProtectionOfficial source · esafety.gov.au ↗

19 FEB 2026 · Policy / Guidance

Guidance on quantum technology pertaining to computing

On 19 February 2026, the Cyber Security Centre adopted the guidance on quantum technology pertaining to computing. The guidance explains how quantum computing may affect cybersecurity and calls for early preparedness for post-quantum risks. It applies to small and medium businesses, large organisations, critical infrastructure operators, and government bodies that rely on cryptography, cloud services, or high-performance computing. The guidance outlines the differences between quantum and cla...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · cyber.gov.au ↗

16 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Rinaldi v Department of Justice (Right to Information and Privacy)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland CAT. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Lutvey v Department of Community Safety'; Tribunal found the case does not appear to exist and noted AI use in submissions. Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Court: Queensland CATParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Queensland CAT

13 FEB 2026 · Other

Securities and Investments Commission investigation into FIIG Securities over alleged failure to meet cybersecurity requirements (Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited/No. QUD144/2025)

On 13 February 2026, the Federal Court of Australia ordered FIIG Securities Limited (FIIG) to pay a pecuniary penalty of AUD 2'500'000 for contravening its Australian Financial Services licence obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) between 13 March 2019 and 8 June 2023. The Court found that FIIG failed to maintain adequate technological, human, and financial resources, as well as appropriate risk management systems, to manage cybersecurity risks. These deficiencies...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · asic.gov.au ↗

12 FEB 2026 · Court Case

RYJZ and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the ART Australia. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on 'Cheung v FCT [2021] AATA 3851'; Tribunal and Commissioner found no record of that case and treated it as a fabricated citation, noting possible AI use.

Court: ART AustraliaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: ART Australia

10 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Morcos v Bayside Council

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the IRC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's filed list of authorities contained multiple 'hallucinated' (fabricated) cases; the Commission observed the list appeared to include AI-generated fabricated cases and questioned the applicant's candour.

Court: IRC New South WalesParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: IRC New South Wales

09 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Court of Australia. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on AI-generated references that included non-existent authorities; JML relied on Wheatley J's prior finding of such AI use to argue increased costs. Outcome: Order for security for costs.

Court: Federal Court of AustraliaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Federal Court of Australia

05 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Application by Pennisi

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant relied on an authority cited as Iwasaki v Hays [2019] FWCFB 1761; the Commission found that this citation does not exist and declined to treat it as supporting exceptional circumstances.

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: Fair Work Commission

03 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court determined it was a hallucinated authority produced by AI and did not rely on it. || Fabricated: Case Law | A third case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court treated it as an AI hallucination and the solicitors withdrew reliance on the citation.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: Federal Circuit and Family Court

02 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Broadwater Tower

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Queensland BCCMC. Fabricated: Legal Norm | Applicant cited s 227 of the Act as a provision about 'abuse of power and retaliatory conduct'; adjudicator found s 227 actually pertains to the meaning of 'dispute' and flagged the citation as incorrect. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Queensland BCCMCParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Queensland BCCMC

30 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the NSW CAT. Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Submission cited 's 3(3)(c) of the National Law' which the Tribunal noted has been repealed (outdated statutory provision).

Court: NSW CATParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: NSW CAT

19 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Riley v. Nuvei Australia Merchant Services

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited several Fair Work Commission decisions as authority for the proposition that WorkCover certificates lack probative value; Commission found those cited decisions do not exist.

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Fair Work Commission

16 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Lutfi v. Tucker

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's written submissions included a cited authority that did not exist; applicant admitted AI prepared the submissions and the court treated it as a fabricated case citation. Outcome: Warning.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Federal Circuit and Family Court

14 JAN 2026 · Policy / Guidance

Guidance on managing cyber security risks in Artificial intelligence for small business

On 14 January 2026, the Australian Signals Directorate's Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD's ACSC) published guidance on managing cybersecurity risks of artificial intelligence for small businesses, aimed at managing cybersecurity risks when adopting cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The guidance aims to address vulnerabilities such as data leaks, privacy breaches, unreliable AI outputs, and supply chain dependencies. It clarifies that businesses should implement inte...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · cyber.gov.au ↗

12 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Smith and Commissioner of Taxation

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Administrative Review Tribunal. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'AAT Case [2011] AATA 206' as supporting reconstructed records; Tribunal noted the actual decision at that citation is Barclay and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 206 and it does not support the Applicant's proposition (misrepresentation/misapplication).

Court: Administrative Review TribunalParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Administrative Review Tribunal

27 DEC 2025 · Executive Order

Hosting Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material) under Online Safety Act 2021

On 27 December 2025, the Hosting Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material) under the Online Safety Act 2021 enters into force. The Code was developed by the Australian online industry, including the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), the Communications Alliance, the Consumer Electronics Suppliers Association (CESA), the Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI), and the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA). It applies to services that store co...

Primary legal sourceContent ModerationOfficial source · esafety.gov.au ↗

24 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Mrs Sandra Archer v GTC Contracting

Pro Se Litigant used Unidentified in proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. Fabricated: Case Law

Court: Fair Work CommissionParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Fair Work Commission

23 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Tekla & Tekla

Pro Se Litigant appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Dogan & Dogan' (said to be Family Court of Australia, 2004); court noted it does not exist and omitted it from reasons.

Court: Federal Circuit and Family CourtParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Federal Circuit and Family Court

23 DEC 2025 · Court Case

In the matter of Bayfoyle

Lawyer appeared before the SC New South Wales. Fabricated: Case Law | Submissions and outline relied on several non-existent case authorities likely generated by AI; an email falsely attributed one non-existent authority to a Court reference; court noted failure to verify. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order (AI misuse one of the factors); Declined to Refer to the Bar.

Court: SC New South WalesParty: Lawyer

Fine: 1

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: SC New South Wales

22 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Leytcorp v Mimbim Enterprises

Lawyer appeared before the Trade Marks Office. Fabricated: Case Law | Removal Applicant's written submissions referenced several non-existent case authorities and attendant non-existent propositions of law; delegate characterised these references as AI hallucinations arising from the representative's materials.

Court: Trade Marks OfficeParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceJudicial & Law Enforcement ·Generative AI ·Liability & AccountabilityIssuing institution: Trade Marks Office