B.C. Tribunal Rejects $100K Penalty Against X, Rules Canadian Geoblocking Sufficient in Intimate Image Dispute

Sarah Desjardins

11/4/20265 min read

British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled that social media platform X took reasonable steps to address the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image by blocking access to it within Canada, despite refusing to remove the material from its platform worldwide.

The decision, issued Monday, November 2, raises important questions about the limits of provincial legislation when applied to international technology companies operating across multiple legal jurisdictions.

Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr concluded that X's use of geographical restrictions, commonly known as geoblocking, provided a valid defence against an additional administrative penalty under British Columbia's Intimate Images Protection Act.

The case involves a woman whose intimate image was shared online without her permission. Her identity remains protected by a publication ban.

Although the company prevented users in Canada from viewing the image, the material remained accessible to users elsewhere.

The latest ruling follows an earlier tribunal decision in September 2025 that imposed a $100,000 penalty against X for failing to comply fully with an order requiring the image's deletion.

Dispute Began With Order to Remove Intimate Image

The legal proceedings began in March 2025 when the complainant obtained a protection order under British Columbia's Intimate Images Protection Act.

The legislation was introduced to give people a more accessible way to respond when intimate photographs or recordings are distributed without their consent.

Under the protection order, X was directed to delete the image from its platform.

Instead, the company restricted access to the content based on users' geographical locations.

The measure prevented people accessing the platform from Canada from viewing the image but did not remove it from X's servers or make it unavailable internationally.

The complainant subsequently pursued enforcement through the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

In September 2025, the tribunal concluded that X had not fulfilled the deletion requirement and imposed a $100,000 administrative penalty.

The woman later sought a further penalty because the image remained accessible outside Canada.

X opposed the additional financial sanction, arguing that its actions were sufficient under the legislation and that British Columbia could not reasonably require a global platform to enforce provincial content restrictions worldwide.

Tribunal Accepts Geoblocking as Reasonable Response

In the latest decision, Regehr examined a provision of the legislation that protects internet intermediaries from certain penalties if they have taken reasonable steps to address the unlawful distribution of intimate images.

X argued that geoblocking was an appropriate response because the platform operates internationally and must comply with different laws governing online content.

The company maintained that requiring worldwide deletion under British Columbia law could interfere with the legal authority of other countries.

Regehr accepted that argument in assessing whether X could rely on the statutory defence.

Although the company had not complied with the original deletion order, the tribunal found that blocking access in Canada reasonably addressed the unlawful distribution for the purposes of the penalty provision.

The distinction is important because the decision does not mean international platforms are automatically exempt from protection orders.

Rather, it addresses whether a company can be financially penalized when it has taken measures the tribunal considers reasonable under the circumstances.

The ruling therefore highlights the difference between requiring a platform to remove content and determining whether its response is sufficient to avoid an administrative penalty.

International Law Influences Tribunal's Decision

A central issue in the proceedings was the legal principle known as international comity.

The principle recognizes that countries should respect one another's sovereignty and legal systems when exercising their own authority.

X argued that globally enforcing a British Columbia content-removal order could interfere with laws and rights applicable in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, where the company's servers are located.

Regehr considered that argument alongside a 2024 Australian court decision addressing similar questions about the geographical reach of online content restrictions.

Although the Australian ruling was not legally binding in British Columbia, the tribunal found its reasoning persuasive.

The concern was that requiring a foreign corporation to remove content worldwide could effectively regulate its operations and contractual relationships outside Canada.

The decision reflects the challenge governments face when attempting to apply domestic online safety laws to companies whose platforms are accessible across international borders.

While provinces can establish protections for residents, enforcing those protections against foreign companies can raise complicated questions about jurisdiction and international legal obligations.

X Denied Request for Substantial Legal Expenses

Despite accepting X's defence against a further penalty, the tribunal rejected the company's attempt to recover its legal expenses from the complainant.

X sought more than $100,000 in legal fees and related costs incurred during the proceedings.

The complainant, who represented herself without a lawyer, would have faced a significant financial burden if the request had been granted.

Regehr determined that requiring individuals to assume such substantial financial risks could discourage people from pursuing protection orders against large technology companies.

He emphasized that the Civil Resolution Tribunal was designed to offer an accessible and affordable alternative to traditional court proceedings.

The tribunal also considered that applicants seeking administrative penalties do not personally receive the money collected.

Instead, financial penalties are intended to encourage compliance with legal orders.

Regehr concluded that imposing significant costs on people who pursue enforcement in good faith could undermine the purpose of the legislation.

The decision therefore rejected X's claim for legal expenses while declining to impose the additional administrative penalty sought by the complainant.

Provincial Law Designed to Protect Victims of Online Abuse

British Columbia introduced its Intimate Images Protection Act in 2023 as part of broader efforts to address the unauthorized sharing of private images.

The legislation was developed partly in response to growing concerns about online exploitation, harassment and the lasting consequences of intimate material being distributed without consent.

The province's efforts were influenced by cases involving young people subjected to online abuse, including Amanda Todd, a British Columbia teenager who died by suicide in 2012 after experiencing cyberbullying and online sexual exploitation.

The law allows affected individuals to seek protection orders requiring the removal of intimate images and provides mechanisms for compensation and enforcement.

It also enables people to bring certain claims through the Civil Resolution Tribunal, an online dispute-resolution system intended to reduce the cost and complexity of pursuing legal remedies.

When introducing the legislation, outgoing attorney general Niki Sharma emphasized the need to give affected individuals greater control over their private images and more accessible options for seeking justice.

The province argued that traditional legal proceedings could be expensive, intimidating and difficult to navigate, particularly for people already experiencing significant emotional distress.

Ruling Raises Questions About Cross-Border Enforcement

The latest decision illustrates the legal difficulties involved in regulating online content distributed through international platforms.

Although X's geographical restrictions prevented the image from being viewed in Canada, the complainant's objective of having it permanently removed from the platform was not achieved.

The ruling establishes that geographical blocking may constitute a reasonable response for the purposes of the legislation's administrative penalty provisions, depending on the circumstances.

However, it does not resolve every question about how protection orders should operate when companies, users and computer systems are located in different countries.

For individuals seeking the permanent removal of intimate material, the decision underscores the distinction between limiting access in one jurisdiction and achieving worldwide deletion.

It also demonstrates the tribunal's effort to balance international legal considerations with the need to preserve accessible remedies for people affected by non-consensual image sharing.

As governments continue developing laws to address online harms, the dispute highlights an important challenge: ensuring meaningful protection for individuals while determining how far provincial and national legal authority can extend across the global internet.

News

Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.

SUBSCRIBE

LINKS

Ethics