British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled it cannot penalize X for not deleting an intimate image, saying geoblocking from Canada addressed its unlawful distribution under the provincial law.
The Story
British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled Monday that it could not penalize X for not deleting an intimate image that was shared online against a complainant’s will.
The tribunal said geoblocking—blocking the image from being seen in Canada—reasonably addressed the image’s unlawful distribution, and reversed an earlier decision that had imposed a $100,000 penalty.
In a statement associated with the ruling, B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma said the decision suggests governments cannot force international internet companies to delete intimate images under provincial legislation meant to protect people from having such pictures shared without consent.
Sharma said she was “appalled” that X refused to take down the image while it circulated without the person’s consent. She argued governments should pursue legal changes to bring accountability to platforms, saying “We live in this world in which our laws need to adjust to meet the harms that are out there,” and adding that governments may need to step in where platforms do not act as governments expect.
The tribunal case followed a protection order issued in March 2025 under B.C.’s protection act, requiring X to delete the intimate image. A September 2025 tribunal decision had found X liable and ordered the $100,000 penalty, but X challenged that outcome.
X’s position was that the tribunal could not order it to do more than geoblock the image, which it had already done. Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr said in the latest decision that he reversed the fine and found X had a valid defence under a section of the law stating an internet company is not liable if it “has taken reasonable steps to address the unlawful distribution.”
Regehr also addressed X’s argument that geoblocking was reasonable because the platform is global and enforcing a B.C. posting restriction everywhere would violate international comity—the “mutual respect among nations.” Regehr said comity “may operate to limit a law’s application outside Canada.”
The ruling cited “compelling” reasoning from an Australian case from 2024, though Regehr said it was not binding.
Regehr rejected X’s request that the complainant be ordered to pay legal fees of more than US$100,000. The complainant, whose name is under a publication ban, represented herself in the case.
Sharma said the protections were brought in by her NDP government in 2024 and pointed to the legislation being tabled in 2023, partly in response to the 2012 death of teenager Amanda Todd after she faced cyberbullying and online sexual exploitation.
At the time the protections were introduced, Sharma said sharing intimate images without consent “is a betrayal that can have devastating impacts,” and said victims often face limited, complex and expensive legal options. She said the goal was to build “a path to justice for people to regain control of their private images and hold perpetrators to account.”
← More stories