A decision by social media company X to challenge a “clear order” from B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal to remove a non-consensual intimate image from its platform has left Attorney General Niki Sharma “deeply disturbed”.
“Let me be clear: The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is profoundly harmful and has no place on any platform, anywhere, ever,” Sharma said in a statement Thursday (Nov. 13).
“Under B.C. law, these images must be removed when ordered to do so, without exceptions. Blocking access only within our borders is not enough. Survivors deserve real protection, not half measures.”
Sharma said she has instructed her legal team to join the case to support B.C. legislation.
Petition filed in early November
Sharma’s statement is in response to a petition X Corp. filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. in Vancouver on Nov. 3 looking to have an administrative penalty decision quashed. The petition claims the company complied with the protection order.
X, formerly Twitter, is seeking relief in several ways, including:
• An order quashing an administrative penalty from the tribunal issued Sept. 4, 2025
• An order substituting the penalty with a decision from the court finding that X complied or made reasonable efforts to comply with the protection order
• An order amending the protection order, specificying that it only applies in the province of B.C.
X Corp. says it complied, or took reasonable steps to comply with the order and the tribunal’s vice-chair’s order blocking publication globally violates international comity. International comity refers to relations between sovereign states.
The petition also includes a name attached to the respondent, despite a Civil Resolution Tribunal publication ban of the respondent’s name or anything that would identify her.
Claim first brought forward in March
In September, the tribunal ordered X Corp. to remove an image from its social media platform, saying it violated B.C. law. X Corp. says it complied by making the image unavailable in Canada.
The court documents state the tribunal found that to be insufficient. It “demanded the global deletion” — including deleting information from X Corp.’s servers in the U.S. — and levied the maxiumum penalty under the Intimate Images Protection Act against X Corp.
X Corp. argues that “the problem with the Tribunal’s decision is that it incorrectly orders global blocking, contrary to Canada’s Constitution and principles of international comity.”
The document claims the respondent provided no evidence of third parties accessing the image either in B.C., Canada or elsewhere on X after the company blocked the image in Canada.
The respondent had applied to the Civil Resolution Tribunal for a protection order for three images: an altered image, a genitals image and a blurred image. On March 28, 2025, the tribunal’s vice-chair Eric Regehr granted a general protection order over the altered and genital image, but found the blurred image was not an intimate image and dismissed that application.
Regehr, according to the documents, later cancelled the original order related to the genitals image “because, contrary to what the respondent claimed, she had posted the image online herself and thus forfeited any expectation of privacy.”
X Corp. geo-blocked the altered image in Canada after receiving the original order on April 13, 2025. The company says geo-blocking is a “sufficient and effective measure” that involves identifying the relevant user’s country of origin based on information such as IP addresses and then blocking access from specific countries.
The company says that it also suspended the account that posted the altered image for violating X’s terms of service. Once an account is suspended, none of its content is visible on X.
The documents claim the respondent on April 7, 2025 request the Civil Resolution Tribunal impose an administrative penalty on X Corp. for failing to comply with the March order. The respondent served the company with a notice on June 12, 2025, “which did not specify how X Corp. had failed to comply with the Order.”
On Sept. 4, Regehr ordered X Corp. to pay an administrative penalty of $100,000 — the maximum allowed under the Intimate Images Protection Act.
Regehr acknowledged X Corp. didn’t ignore the protection order, but instead “acted promptly to geofence the intimate image.” But Regehr also found that by doing “something less” than globally deleting the image, the company had failed to comply with the order.
However, he declined to award the respondent compensation because they “knowingly or negligently … provided false or misleading submissions.”
About the Intimate Images Protection Act
B.C.’s Intimate Images Protection Act came into effect in 2023, making it against the law to share or threaten to share an intimate image of someone without their consent.
Through the act, British Columbians can make claims through the B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal three ways:
• A claim for an intimate image protection order, which is a take-down order for someone to delete the image, stop sharing or threatening to share it;
• A claim for damages, which would be payable to the person making the claim;
• A penalty that if someone doesn’t comply with the intimate protection order then it would be payable to the B.C. government