Social media site X can’t be fined for refusing to delete intimate image, B.C. civil tribunal rules

The B.C. civil resolution tribunal has ruled that the social media giant X Corp. cannot be fined for its failure to remove an intimate image that was posted without a woman’s consent.

Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr said that X, formerly known as Twitter, agreed to block the image in Canada after the woman’s request, but did not delete it from the platform.

In March 2025, Regehr granted the woman, identified only as TR, a protection order under B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act. When that order was presented to X, the company responded by using a practice called geoblocking, blockign access to the picture in Canada, but leaving the image available for viewing in other countries.

In a decision last September, Regehr ordered X to pay a $100,000 administrative penalty for failing to fully comply with the protection order. Because the image is still not deleted, TR asked Regehr to hit X Corp. with a further $100,000 fine.

However, X argued it could not be ordered to do anything beyond geoblocking the image, and that it took reasonable steps to make the image unavailable in Canada.

“X argues that geoblocking images that contravene the (Intimate Images Protection Act) reasonably addresses the distribution of intimate images on its platform because it is a global platform subject to many different legal regimes about what people are allowed to post,” wrote Regehr.

“X argues that it would be unreasonable to expect it to strictly comply with B.C. law by deleting the image, with global effect, when United States law would not require it to remove the image.”

All of X’s internet servers are in the U.S.

Put another way, X said geoblocking is reasonable because enforcing a B.C. law about what is allowed to be posted online could infringe on the sovereignty of other nations and their laws.

Though the original order was to “delete” it altogether, Regehr agreed the tribunal does not have that authority.

X also argued the image is not legally an intimate one under the act, though Regehr disagreed in his 2025 protection order and did not change his mind in the latest decision.

TR conceded that X has complied with the order to the extent that it has blocked distribution of the image in Canada, and that instances of it have been removed by X — but only because the posts containing the image violated X’s terms of service for other reasons.

X provided an opinion from an expert on U.S. law, Ambika Kumar, who said that “neither the protection order nor the administrative penalty is enforceable in the United States,” pointing to cases where courts there “refused to enforce Canadian orders about online content because Canadian law generally tolerates greater limits on speech than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Regehr agreed the intimate image in question would likely not be considered unlawful under U.S. law.

Citing a similar case in Australia, Regehr said that court “concluded that such an order would, in effect, govern a foreign corporation’s operations in a foreign country, and would intrude on a foreign corporation’s contractual relationship with people all over the world.”