X Corporation has been fined $100,000 by British Columbia's civil resolution tribunal for failing to fully remove an intimate image of a B.C. woman from its x.com social media platform. The tribunal ruled that it was insufficient for the company to only remove the image within Canada.

The San Francisco-based company, owned by Elon Musk, argued that it had complied with a protection order issued in March by removing the image from x.com in Canada through a method known as "geofencing." However, tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr stated that this approach was ineffective.

The company's Canadian lawyer contended that the tribunal lacked the authority to mandate the removal of the image from x.com outside of Canada, asserting that the jurisdiction of B.C.'s Intimate Images Protection Act ends at the province's borders. Despite this, the tribunal found that the geofencing did not work as intended. The woman continued to discover the image on the platform after the March order and reported it to X in April.

In his decision, Regehr noted that the woman lives with the knowledge that the image remains visible to a global audience. He emphasized that geofencing "is really not a solution at all" because the harm includes the awareness that others may still see the image.

The March protection order required X to remove the intimate image from its app, software, or database, as well as delete or destroy the image and de-index it from search engines. The tribunal determined that X had not complied for at least 92 days between April and July, leading to the imposition of a $5,000 fine for each day the image remained accessible, reaching the maximum penalty of $100,000.

Regehr found evidence from the woman's email exchanges with X, which showed that the image was reposted during April, May, and June. X informed the woman that it had geofenced the image in Canada around April 13 and had suspended one account for violating its terms of service. However, the woman continued to find the image and provided links and screenshots to the tribunal.

On July 16, X submitted a response arguing that the tribunal lacked authority to enforce compliance outside of B.C. Regehr noted that while decisions ordering fines are typically not made public, this case is significant as it marks the first fine against an internet intermediary, warranting its publication for public awareness.

In its defense, X's Toronto lawyer cited two Supreme Court of Canada rulings, claiming that provinces can only legislate on property and civil rights within their own borders. However, Regehr stated that the tribunal cannot consider constitutional arguments and must assume the Act is constitutional, thus granting it authority to issue a protection order with global implications.

Regehr concluded that X's decision not to comply was intentional and caused unnecessary harm and distress to the woman. He indicated that the fine needed to be substantial to deter X, a large corporation with significant resources. The fine is due immediately, and Regehr warned that if X fails to comply, the woman could seek additional fines of $5,000 per day. Neither X nor its lawyer responded to requests for comment.