The actions of X on intimate images are ‘appalling,’ outgoing B.C. AG says

Out-going British Columbia Attorney General Niki Sharma says governments have to keep up the fight to protect people from online harms if social media companies like X don’t take on their own corporate responsibility.

B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled on Monday that it can’t penalize X for not deleting an intimate image of a complainant shared online against her will, and that “geoblocking” the image from being seen in Canada instead reasonably addressed its unlawful distribution.

The ruling released Monday suggests international internet companies can’t be forced to delete intimate images under provincial legislation designed to protect people from having such pictures shared without their consent.

Sharma says she is appalled that X refused to take down an intimate image that is circulating without the person’s consent and that governments should be pushing for legal changes to bring accountability for the platforms.

She says X is the only company that has used geoblocking under the Intimate Images Protection Act, while the rest simply take down the images when requested.

Sharma, whose NDP government brought in the protections in 2024, says the “correct legal response” to the ruling would be to ask for a legal opinion on strengthening the law or seek legal recourse.

“We live in this world in which our laws need to adjust to meet the harms that are out there,” she says.

“What we found with platforms like X is that they will fight out everything legally before they take actual steps for safety.”

It means governments have to step in to legally enforce those standards or fight it out in court because the laws need to evolve to respond to the harms that are happening, she says.

The tribunal case stemmed from a March 2025 protection order issued under B.C.’s protection act that X delete the intimate image shared on its platform.

The tribunal then ruled in September 2025 that X must pay a $100,000 penalty for not deleting the image, but the social media platform challenged that decision, saying the tribunal could not order it to do any more than geoblock the image, which it had done.

Tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr says in the latest decision that he was reversing the fine, and that X had a valid defence under a section of the law that states an internet company is not liable if it “has taken reasonable steps to address the unlawful distribution.”

“X argues that geoblocking images that contravene the IIPA 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,” he says.

“Put another way, X argues that geoblocking is reasonable because globally enforcing a BC law about what is allowed to be posted online would violate the comity of nations,” he added.

Regehr says that comity — the idea of mutual respect among nations — “may operate to limit a law’s application outside Canada. “

His ruling cited the “compelling” reasoning in an Australian case from 2024, although he said it was not a binding authority.

Regehr rejected X’s request that the complainant be ordered to pay its legal fees in excess of US$100,000. The company is owned by the Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, with a net worth estimated at $US900 billion by Forbes’ real-time billionaires list.

“I find that it would have a potential chilling effect if applicants had to accept substantial financial risk when deciding whether to try to enforce protection orders against internet intermediaries,” Regher said.

The complainant, whose name is under a publication ban, represented herself.

British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal says it is Canada’s first online tribunal, which offers an accessible, affordable way to resolve many civil disputes without a lawyer, and without a courtroom.

The legislation at the heart of the case was tabled by the NDP government in 2023, partly in response to the 2012 suicide of teenager Amanda Todd, who faced cyberbullying and online sexual exploitation.

Sharma said at the time that the sharing of intimate images without consent “is a betrayal that can have devastating impacts” in promising redress.

“Victims are often too ashamed to come forward and those who do are met with limited, complex and expensive legal options,” she said. “We are building a path to justice for people to regain control of their private images and hold perpetrators to account.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 3, 2026.