How QLD's 2025 Defamation Reforms Protect Property Developers Online

John Merlo
Nov 5
13 min read

Imagine the scenario: your flagship multi-storey residential project is nearing completion, a culmination of years of planning and millions in investment. Suddenly, a disgruntled subcontractor, a vexatious community objector, or a completely anonymous online troll launches a vicious smear campaign on social media and project review sites. False claims of shoddy workmanship, financial instability, or unethical conduct spread like wildfire. Suddenly, financiers are asking pointed questions, off-the-plan sales inquiries dry up, and your personal and corporate reputation—your most valuable asset—is under direct attack.

This is the new digital battlefield. In this environment, you need to prepare a new defence: a "Corporate Shield." This article is a strategic guide for Queensland property developers and company directors on how to prepare and wield that shield using the powerful new tools proposed in the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, currently before the Queensland Parliament.

Key Takeaways

New Powers to Unmask Attackers: The proposed 2025 reforms would grant new court powers to identify anonymous individuals who post defamatory content online, ending their ability to hide.
Holding Platforms Accountable: The proposed legislation would introduce a new defence for digital intermediaries (like Google and Facebook), but only if they follow a strict complaints process, giving you leverage to get content removed.
Proactive Strategy is Essential: These proposed laws would not be a passive defence. You must prepare to integrate them into your corporate governance and risk management strategy to effectively shield your company and personal reputation once enacted.
The Focus is on Serious Harm: The proposed new "serious harm" threshold would mean you must be able to prove that the defamatory content has caused, or is likely to cause, significant damage to your reputation.

The New Digital Battlefield for Property Developers

The modern property development landscape is fraught with unique challenges where digital attacks can inflict tangible financial damage. Understanding the intersection of online reputation management, defamation law, and the specific property developer risks involved is critical for survival and success. A strong corporate reputation is no longer just a PR asset; it's a core component of your financial and operational security.

Why Online Reputation is Your Most Valuable, Vulnerable Asset

In the Queensland property development sector, reputation is intrinsically linked to project viability, investor confidence, and the velocity of off-the-plan sales. A single negative, defamatory campaign—whether on Google Reviews, local Brisbane community Facebook pages, or industry forums—can directly impact a project's financial success. Potential buyers, financiers, and even planning authorities now conduct their due diligence online. A barrage of negative, false commentary can create the perception of risk, causing hesitation and potentially derailing critical project milestones.

This is a stark contrast to the past, where disputes were more contained and manageable. Today, a localised dispute can become a global reputation crisis in a matter of hours. Effectively managing these modern commercial risks requires a deep understanding of both the construction industry and the legal landscape, which is central to Merlo Law's expertise.

Are the Present Defamation Laws Fit for the Digital Age?

The fundamental problem is that Queensland's current Defamation Act 2005 was designed for a world of print media, not viral social media posts and anonymous online forums. Its framework struggles to address the speed, permanence, and anonymity of the internet. Pursuing an anonymous poster is an expensive and often fruitless exercise in preliminary discovery, requiring costly court applications just to identify the person responsible.

Furthermore, the legal responsibility of platform providers like Google or Facebook for the content they host remains a murky, evolving area of law. This significant legal gap leaves developers and their companies exposed to substantial reputational and financial harm with little effective or timely recourse against these digital attacks. The present laws are a shield made of wood. In an age of artillery, a new, stronger defence is desperately needed.

Introducing Your Corporate Shield: The 2025 Defamation Reforms

The proposed Queensland legislation would represent the most significant update to defamation law in nearly two decades. This overhaul would directly address the challenges of the digital age, providing businesses with a modernised legal toolkit. For property developers, these proposed changes would provide the raw materials needed to construct a formidable "corporate shield" against online attacks, but understanding the proposed new rules of engagement, like the serious harm threshold, is paramount for preparation.

What is the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025?

The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 is a major proposed overhaul of Queensland's defamation laws, specifically targeting the challenges of online content and bringing the state into line with national reforms. Current Legislative Status and Timeline: - Introduced: October 14, 2025, by the Hon Deb Frecklington MP, Attorney-General - Committee Referral: October 14, 2025, to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee - Submissions Closed: October 28, 2025 - Public Briefing/Hearing: November 10, 2025 - Committee Report Due: November 28, 2025 -

Current Status: Under detailed committee review (as of October 2025) Once enacted, this legislation would introduce several key changes, including a new test for serious harm, updated defences for digital platforms, and clearer powers for courts to unmask anonymous posters, all of which would form the foundation of your new strategic defence. Property developers should monitor the Bill's progress and prepare their corporate governance frameworks in anticipation of these changes.

The proposed "Serious Harm" Test: A New Gateway for Claims

Warning: The proposed new laws would not be for trivial complaints or minor insults. The introduction of a mandatory "serious harm" threshold would mean you must prove that a defamatory publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your company's or your personal reputation.

This would be a significantly higher bar than under the present regime and is specifically designed to filter out minor claims that clog the court system. For a property development company, this would mean you cannot simply point to a negative comment; you must be prepared to demonstrate its real-world impact. Have you lost a potential investor? Can you show a decline in sales inquiries that correlates with the defamatory posts? Are your joint venture partners expressing concern?

Meticulously documenting this tangible damage would become the essential first step before even considering legal action and is a critical part of the brief when seeking expert legal advice on a defamation dispute.

Preparing Your Shield: Key Powers for Directors and Companies

The proposed 2025 reforms are not just theoretical; they would provide tangible new legal powers that would form the core of your corporate shield. Understanding how to prepare to leverage these proposed tools against digital platforms and anonymous attackers is essential for any director or company operating in Queensland's high-stakes property market.

These proposed changes would fundamentally alter the dynamics of digital intermediary liability and provide clear pathways for content removal and the identification of anonymous posters.

A New Responsibility for Digital Platforms

One of the most significant proposed changes is the introduction of a new conditional defence for "digital intermediaries"—the platforms like Google, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and online forums that host third-party content. This proposed defence would protect them from liability for defamatory content posted by their users, but it would come with a crucial string attached: they must have a clear, accessible, and standardised complaints process.

This process would allow a victim of defamation (the developer) to issue a complaints notice to the platform, which would then put the original poster on notice. If the platform fails to have such a system, or fails to follow it correctly, they may lose this powerful legal defence. This would create a powerful commercial and legal incentive for them to cooperate in resolving disputes, rather than ignoring them. It would shift the burden of responsibility, making platforms active participants in policing their own networks.

How Can You Compel the Removal of Defamatory Content?

Let's walk through a practical scenario of how this would work once the Bill is enacted. You, a director of a development company in the Gold Coast, discover a series of highly defamatory and false reviews about your new apartment building on a popular property review website.

Under the proposed new laws, your first strategic move would not be a public rebuttal, but a formal action. You would use the platform's new, mandatory complaints procedure to issue a notice, detailing the defamatory statements and requesting their removal. The platform would then be obligated to take steps to inform the original poster. Often, this official contact would be enough to make the poster retract their statements and remove the content.

However, if the poster refuses or is uncontactable, and the platform fails to act, your position would be stronger than under current law. The platform's failure to assist could weaken their legal defence. This would give your legal team significant leverage. The proposed new laws would provide clearer grounds to approach the court and seek specific court orders compelling the platform to take down the material.

This ability to force content removal would be a crucial tool for rapid damage control, stopping the spread of harmful misinformation before it can fatally wound a project's reputation.

Unmasking Anonymous Trolls: The Power to Identify Posters

Arguably the most powerful proposed new tool in your arsenal would be the court's enhanced ability to grant discovery orders compelling digital platforms to reveal the identity and contact details of anonymous posters.

For years, the shield of anonymity has emboldened disgruntled ex-employees, failed tenderers, or malicious competitors to launch damaging attacks without fear of consequence. This proposed new provision would pierce that veil.

This would be a game-changer for accountability. It would mean that when you are faced with a damaging campaign from "BuilderReviewer2024" or some other anonymous handle, you would no longer be powerless. You could take decisive legal action to unmask the individual behind the keyboard. Once identified, you could pursue them directly for the harm they have caused, holding the actual source of the defamatory content responsible. This process would not be automatic; it would require a carefully prepared court application demonstrating a prima facie case.

Navigating this would require precision and expertise, making it essential to seek guidance from specialist building and construction lawyers who understand both the technology and the legal thresholds involved.

Proactive Defence: Integrating the Reforms into Your Business Strategy

The proposed 2025 defamation reforms would offer a shield, but it would be one you must actively prepare to build and maintain. A purely reactive approach is a recipe for failure. To truly protect your company once these reforms become law, you must prepare to embed these new legal realities into your core business strategy, from your corporate governance frameworks to your day-to-day risk management protocols. This proactive defence preparation is about preventing fires, not just fighting them.

Updating Your Contracts and Corporate Governance

A director's first step should be to review the company's existing risk management framework in anticipation of these proposed new laws. This means preparing to incorporate new protocols for systematically monitoring online mentions of the company, its key projects (e.g., a new development in inner-city Brisbane), and its senior personnel. This isn't about vanity searching; it's about early threat detection.

Furthermore, it is crucial to begin updating standard subcontractor, consultant, and joint venture partner agreements. These should be prepared to include carefully drafted clauses regarding professional conduct, confidentiality, and non-disparagement.

While these clauses don't prevent all disputes, they establish a clear contractual expectation of behaviour and can be a powerful tool if a commercial disagreement threatens to spill into the public domain. Having these frameworks in place can provide crucial leverage in situations that might otherwise escalate towards terminating construction contracts.

Training Your Team on the New Digital Reality

The 'Corporate Shield' is only as strong as the people who uphold it. Your frontline staff—site supervisors, sales agents, project managers—are your eyes and ears. They are often the first to hear about online chatter, pick up on subcontractor discontent, or deal with a community complaint that could escalate into a public crisis.

It is essential to implement internal training that educates your team on how to identify potential defamatory threats. They need to understand the new digital reality and be equipped with a clear, unambiguous protocol for escalating these issues internally to senior management or your legal team immediately. A well-intentioned but ill-informed public response from a staff member can inflame a situation and waive legal privileges.

When Does a Dispute Cross the Line into Defamation?

It is vital for directors and managers to distinguish between a legitimate commercial dispute and actionable defamation. Imagine a scenario: a developer, "David," is in a payment dispute with a subcontractor over a variation claim on a project on the Sunshine Coast.

The subcontractor posts on a local construction industry Facebook group, "David's company hasn't paid our last invoice." While damaging, this statement, if true, is likely a matter of a commercial dispute, potentially governed by laws concerning your legal payment rights.

However, the situation crosses the line into defamation when the post escalates. If the subcontractor adds, "David is a crook who runs a fraudulent operation, he rips off all his tradies. Avoid him at all costs," the attack has now shifted. It is no longer just about a single disputed invoice; it is a direct, public attack on David's personal and professional reputation, alleging criminality and unethical conduct.

This is the critical distinction. The latter statement is designed not just to air a grievance, but to cause serious, widespread reputational harm, making it potentially actionable under the new laws.

When the Shield is Breached: Your Strategic Response Plan

Even with the best proactive strategy, a breach can occur. When defamatory content about your company or project goes live, your response in the first 24-48 hours is critical—both now under current law and in preparation for the proposed reforms.

A panicked, emotional reaction can escalate the situation and weaken your legal position. A calm, methodical, and strategic defamation response is essential for effective damage control and successful legal action under either framework.

Step 1: Assess the Threat and Document Everything

The moment you or your team discover potentially defamatory content, the first and most important step is to resist the urge to engage publicly. Do not post a reply, get into an argument in the comments section, or contact the poster directly. Your immediate priority is evidence preservation. Begin a methodical process of documentation: take clear, full-page screenshots of the posts, comments, and any user profiles. Record the specific URLs and note the exact date and time of discovery.

Once the evidence is secured, you must begin to assess potential harm—and under the proposed reforms, the "serious harm" test. This is not a theoretical exercise. Start a log. Are your sales agents reporting that potential buyers are mentioning the online posts in calls? Have your finance brokers or investors started asking questions? Is there a noticeable drop in web traffic or sales inquiries?

This documented, real-world impact is the evidence you will need now and would be essential under the proposed "serious harm" threshold, forming the foundation of any successful litigation.

Step 2: Choosing the Right Arena for the Fight

It is a common misconception that every dispute must end in a costly Supreme Court battle. A sophisticated legal strategy involves choosing the right arena for the specific fight. While a pure defamation claim is handled in the District or Supreme Courts of Queensland, many online attacks stem from underlying commercial or building disputes. In these cases, a parallel action in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) may be more efficient and appropriate for resolving the root cause of the conflict.

For example, a dispute over building standards or contractual obligations might fall under the jurisdiction of QCAT, governed by legislation like the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, the Building Act 1975, or the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000. A coordinated strategy that addresses the defamation publicly and the commercial dispute in the appropriate tribunal is often the most effective path forward.

Engaging Legal Counsel: Why Early Action is Crucial

Time is your enemy in online defamation cases. The longer false and damaging content remains online, the more it is shared, indexed by search engines, and seen by potential customers, partners, and financiers.

The reputational damage compounds daily. This is why early engagement with legal counsel is absolutely critical. An experienced lawyer can immediately issue a formal Concerns Notice to the publisher, which is a mandatory first step before commencing proceedings under current law.

As an expert in this field, John Merlo emphasises that swift action would also allow you to leverage the proposed new platform liability rules once enacted, putting pressure on social media companies and review sites to act. Delaying action not only allows the damage to spread but could also be interpreted by a court as evidence that the harm was not, in fact, "serious" under the proposed threshold. In the digital age, decisive, informed, and immediate legal action is the cornerstone of an effective defence.

Conclusion: The Shield is Forged, But You Must Raise It

The proposed 2025 defamation reforms would provide Queensland property developers with a powerful and long-overdue set of tools to build a 'Corporate Shield' against the unique threats of the digital age. The proposed power to unmask anonymous attackers, the leverage to hold platforms accountable, and the strategic imperative of the proposed "serious harm" test would fundamentally shift the balance of power once enacted.

However, this shield would not be automatic. It would offer no protection if left unprepared. It must be actively prepared for now and wielded decisively once enacted. This requires preparing for proactive integration of these new legal realities into your corporate governance and risk management strategies. It demands methodical documentation, disciplined internal processes, and, when a threat emerges, swift and decisive action.

The proposed law recognises the immense value of digital reputation and would provide a strengthened pathway to protect it. It is up to the directors and leaders in the property development industry to prepare now to walk that path effectively once the Bill passes.

Current Status: With the Bill currently before the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee (report due November 28, 2025), now is the time to review your corporate governance frameworks and prepare for implementation. We encourage you to monitor the Bill's progress through Parliament, review your current risk management strategies, and consult with legal experts to ensure your shield is ready for when these reforms become law. For more insights into construction and commercial law, please visit our publications hub.

FAQs

What is the single biggest proposed change for property developers in the 2025 defamation laws?

The single biggest proposed change would be the court's enhanced power to order digital platforms like Google and Facebook to reveal the identity of anonymous posters. This would pierce the veil of anonymity that currently protects online attackers, making it possible to hold the actual source of defamatory content directly accountable once the Bill is enacted.

Would I have to prove "serious harm" for my company to sue for defamation under the proposed law?

Yes, if the Bill is enacted. The proposed legislation would introduce a mandatory "serious harm" threshold for all defamation claims. For a corporation, you would need to be able to prove that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious financial loss. This would be a higher bar than under current law and would require clear evidence of negative impact.

Could I sue Google or Facebook directly if someone posts defamatory content about my project under the proposed law

Potentially, but it would be more complex. The proposed new laws would give these platforms a conditional defence. If they have a compliant and accessible complaints process and follow it correctly, they would generally be protected. However, if they fail to have or follow this process, they could lose that protection, making them a potential target for legal action. The primary strategy would be to use their process to identify the original poster.

What is a "Concerns Notice" and is it mandatory?

A Concerns Notice is a formal written communication sent to the publisher of the defamatory content. It must specify the statements you consider defamatory and the harm they have caused. Under both current and proposed laws, issuing a Concerns Notice is a mandatory first step that must be taken before you can file a defamation claim in court.

How is a defamation dispute different from a QBCC or QCAT building dispute?

A QBCC or QCAT dispute typically deals with the technical and contractual aspects of building work—things like defects, payment disputes, or licensing issues. Defamation, on the other hand, deals specifically with unlawful damage to your reputation. While a building dispute can lead to defamation (e.g., a client posting false claims online), they are separate legal issues addressed in different forums (QCAT for many building disputes, District/Supreme Court for defamation).

This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact Merlo Law.