Singapore legislation
Clause 94
Clause 94
Tort of failing to respond reasonably to online harm notice
(1)
A victim of an applicable online harmful activity may send an online service provider a written notice that an applicable online harmful activity in relation to the victim has occurred by means of the online service (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 online service provider to address that activity; and
be sent in such manner and form, and contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.
(3)
Where an online service provider is sent an online harm notice in accordance with subsections (1) and (2), the online service provider has a duty to the victim to do the following within a reasonable time:
take reasonable care in assessing 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 online service provider to take to address the applicable online harmful activity under subsection (3), the court is to have regard to the following factors:
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 by means of the online service;
the past conduct of the person who conducted the applicable online harmful activity identified in the online harm notice;
the impact on any person who may be affected by the steps taken to address the applicable online harmful activity; (e)any other consideration or factor that may be prescribed.Illustrations (a) Z provides a social media service. X posts an intimate image of Y using this service without Y’s consent. Y sends Z an online harm notice of the intimate image abuse that has occurred in relation to Y. Z promptly disables access by end‑users on its service to X’s post. Z has taken reasonable steps to address the intimate image abuse identified in Y’s online harm notice. (b) Z provides a social media service. X repeatedly makes harassing posts of Y using this service. Y sends Z an online harm notice of the online harassment that has occurred in relation to Y. Z promptly suspends X’s online account on the service and warns X against repeating X’s actions. Z has taken reasonable steps to address the online harassment identified in Y’s online harm notice. (c) Z provides a social media service. X creates a page on this service to harass Y, and multiple users make harassing posts of Y on this page. Y sends Z an online harm notice of the online harassment that has occurred in relation to Y. Z promptly disables access by end‑users on its service to this page created by X. Z has taken reasonable steps to address the online harassment identified in Y’s online harm notice.
(5)
If an online service provider 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 online service provider (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 has occurred by means of the respondent’s online service;
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 remained accessible to end‑users of the online service.
(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).
(8)
Where the respondent is a prescribed online service provider —
the reasonable time mentioned in subsection (3) is to be read as the prescribed period of time; and
the respondent is in contravention of the respondent’s duty in subsection (3) if the respondent fails to take such steps within the prescribed period of time, unless the respondent can show that it was not reasonable for the respondent to do so.
(9)
Where the respondent has responded to an online harm notice in accordance with requirements that may be prescribed as applicable to the respondent, the respondent is deemed to have fulfilled the respondent’s duty under subsection (3).
(10)
To avoid doubt, the fact that the respondent did not respond to an online harm notice in accordance with the prescribed requirements mentioned in subsection (9) does not, without more, lead to the conclusion that the respondent had failed to fulfil the respondent’s duty under subsection (3).