On Monday, November 2, 2026, British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that it cannot penalise X Corp. for failing to delete an intimate image that was posted without the subject's consent. It found that X's decision to geoblock the image in Canada was a "reasonable step" under the province's Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). The ruling was reported on November 3 by The Canadian Press (via CBC) and the Vancouver Sun. Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr reversed the $100,000 administrative penalty imposed on X in September 2025, and declined the complainant's request for a further $100,000 fine.

Why It Matters

**This ruling sets a geoblocking-only standard for non-consensual intimate images (NCII).** Takedown regimes are spreading quickly: the [US TAKE IT DOWN Act](/stories/take-it-down-act-may-deadline), the UK's new duties on tech executives, [Australia's eSafety powers](/stories/australia-esafety-duty-of-care-escalation), and the Irish and Scottish AI-image bills we track ([*Isles of Consent*](/stories/scotland-ireland-ai-intimate-image-laws)). Each depends on platforms actually removing content. The B.C. decision is the first we've seen in which a tribunal explicitly accepted country-level blocking as sufficient compliance, and it relied on an Australian precedent to do so. That is a strong template for any global platform that wants to argue local NCII orders stop at the border. Victims and their lawyers will have to look to US law, which is now the binding constraint for US-hosted platforms. **For adult platforms and creators**, the ruling cuts both ways. Geoblocking is already how most adult platforms comply with conflicting national rules on age verification and content categories (see the [UK's pornography offences that take effect November 6](/stories/uk-crime-policing-act-royal-assent)). A legal finding that blocking counts as "reasonable steps" supports that approach. For people whose images were shared without consent, though, it means that after winning a protection order, the image can stay visible everywhere outside Canada, and inside Canada to anyone using a VPN. The [RMIT survey](/stories/rmit-ai-image-abuse-survey) published this week shows how many people that affects. Expect B.C.'s next government to be pushed to amend the "reasonable steps" defence, and expect other provinces drafting NCII laws to write in global-removal powers explicitly.

The background. In March 2025, Regehr granted the complainant, identified only as TR and covered by a publication ban, a protection order under the IIPA requiring X to delete the image. X blocked the image for Canadian users but left it visible elsewhere. The tribunal fined X $100,000 in September 2025. Because the image was still online, TR asked for a second penalty. X argued that it had done everything a B.C. order could require. It said that "globally enforcing a B.C. law about what is allowed to be posted online would violate the comity of nations," and that US law would not require removal. X submitted an opinion from US lawyer Ambika Kumar saying neither the protection order nor the penalty would be enforceable in the United States, where courts have refused to enforce Canadian content orders on First Amendment grounds (Vancouver Sun). According to the Vancouver Sun, all of X's servers are in the US.

The reasoning. Regehr held that X had a valid defence under the IIPA section that shields an internet intermediary that "has taken reasonable steps to address the unlawful distribution." He called the reasoning in a 2024 Australian decision, which refused to order global removal, "compelling," though not binding. He also found that the tribunal lacks the authority to order a worldwide deletion. Both CBC and the Comox Valley Record report that he acknowledged geoblocking is not the same as deletion and can be circumvented. He still treated it as a reasonable compromise that "balances the need for X to comply with B.C. law while also respecting the comity of nations." He rejected X's attempt to recover its legal fees from the self-represented complainant. X had asked for more than US$100,000, and the Comox Valley Record puts its spending at roughly $119,000. Regehr said such awards could have a "chilling effect" on victims who try to enforce protection orders against large platforms.

The political reaction. Outgoing B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma, whose NDP government passed the IIPA (tabled in 2023, partly in response to the 2012 death of Amanda Todd), called X's conduct "appalling." She said the "correct legal response" would be to seek a legal opinion on strengthening the law or to pursue legal recourse. "What we found with platforms like X is that they will fight out everything legally before they take actual steps for safety," she said (Canadian Press via CHAT News). The NDP lost B.C.'s provincial election last month, so any amendment will fall to the incoming government.

Sources

Update — 2026-11-05

Initial entry — story first created.