Singapore legislation
Clause 91
Clause 91
Tort of failing to respond reasonably to online harm notice
(1)
A victim of an applicable online harmful activity may send an administrator of an online location a written notice that an applicable online harmful activity in relation to the victim has occurred at that location (called in this section an online harm notice).
(2)
An online harm notice mentioned in subsection (1) must —
identify the applicable online harmful activity in a way that is sufficient to enable the administrator to address that activity; and
be sent in such manner and form, and contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.
(3)
Where an administrator is sent an online harm notice in accordance with subsections (1) and (2), the administrator has a duty to the victim to do the following within a reasonable time:
take reasonable care to assess whether the applicable online harmful activity identified in the notice has occurred;
if so, take reasonable steps to address that applicable online harmful activity.
(4)
In determining what steps are reasonable for an administrator to take to address the applicable online harmful activity under subsection (3), the court is to have regard to the following factors where relevant:
the circumstances in which the applicable online harmful activity identified in the online harm notice was conducted;
the extent to which the applicable online harmful activity identified in the online harm notice is likely to persist or continue at the online location;
the past conduct of the person who conducted the applicable online harmful activity;
the impact on any person who may be affected by the steps taken to address the applicable online harmful activity;
any other relevant factor.Illustrations (a) X is the administrator of a messaging group. Y posts an intimate image of Z on this messaging group without Z’s consent. Z sends X an online harm notice of the intimate image abuse that has occurred in relation to Z. X promptly removes Y’s post from the messaging group. X has taken reasonable steps to address the intimate image abuse identified in Z’s online harm notice. (b) X is the administrator of an online forum. Y repeatedly makes harassing posts of Z on the online forum. Z sends X an online harm notice of the online harassment that has occurred in relation to Z. X promptly suspends Y’s online account on this forum and warns Y against repeating Y’s actions. X has taken reasonable steps to address the online harassment identified in Z’s online harm notice. (c) X is the administrator of an online forum. Y creates a thread on the online forum to harass Z, and multiple users make harassing posts of Z on the thread. Z sends X an online harm notice of the online harassment that has occurred in relation to Z. X promptly removes the thread created by Y from the online forum. X has taken reasonable steps to address the online harassment identified in Z’s online harm notice.
(5)
If an administrator contravenes subsection (3), a person who —
sent the online harm notice in accordance with subsections (1) and (2); and
is a victim of the applicable online harmful activity identified in the notice,may bring civil proceedings in a court against the administrator (called in this section the respondent).
(6)
In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (5), it is presumed until the contrary is proved that the respondent failed to take the reasonable steps mentioned in subsection (3)(b), if the victim proves that —
an online harm notice was sent to the respondent in accordance with subsections (1) and (2);
the applicable online harmful activity identified in the online harm notice occurred at the online location administered by the respondent;
the applicable online harmful activity involved the communication of online material; and
after a reasonable period of time had passed since the online harm notice was sent, that online material was not removed from the online location administered by the respondent.
(7)
In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (5), it is a defence for the respondent to prove that, through no fault of the respondent, the respondent did not receive the online harm notice that was sent in accordance with subsections (1) and (2).