Intimate photo only hidden in Canada: punishment for X

The social network X is to pay a fine of 100,000 dollars (around 62,000 euros) in Canada for blocking an intimate picture published on X without permission in Canada only. A further 5,000 dollar fine is threatened for each additional day. These are the highest penalties that the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) of the province of British Columbia can impose. The applicant concerned and the authority are demanding a worldwide ban.

X considers the provincial authority's assertion of global jurisdiction to be unconstitutional. The penalty notice (2025 BCCRT 1228) of September 4 itself admits that this question is unresolved, but the CRT is not called upon to clarify constitutional issues. The authority has jurisdiction over certain disputes, including small civil claims and traffic accidents, disagreements in property owners' associations, and the publication of intimate images without consent.

The case goes back to an unpublished decision by the same authority in March (Ref. IS-1-2025-000905). Apparently, there is an X user who repeatedly posts a certain intimate image of the applicant. Other X users have redistributed the image. Because this is done without the woman's consent, the CRT has ordered X to block the image if the woman requests it.

She has also asked X to do so on several occasions; X has subsequently blocked at least one X account. Several postings were deleted, but the repeated postings of the image are only unavailable from Canada. The intimate image can be found in other countries. X would prefer to implement the block only in British Columbia, but technically the block is only possible for the whole of Canada. The Canadian does not want to accept this geofencing, which is why she has applied to the CRT for the penalty that has now been imposed.

AI garbage costs

However, the CRT rejected the woman's application for compensation for her expenses for the second procedure. The authority cited the misleading AI-generated submissions made by the woman as justification. Although she disclosed the use of artificial intelligence, she obviously did not check its products. The authority had already warned the woman in the first proceedings, but she submitted nonsense again. For example, she quoted paragraph 150 of an earlier decision, which only has 124 paragraphs. The “quote” is fictitious.

In addition, she refers to allegedly contained legal propositions on legal topics that the alleged precedent decision does not even deal with. She has therefore forfeited any claim to compensation for expenses. However, she can apply for the aforementioned additional penalty of up to 5,000 dollars for each additional day that X does not block the image worldwide.

(ds)