X, formerly known as Twitter, has been ordered to pay $100,000 in the aftermath of a B.C. legal fight.
According to the dispute, which refers to the social media platform as X CORP, X failed to comply with a protection order under the Intimate Images Protection Act.
In March 2025, the tribunal granted the protection order, and TR, the applicant in that original decision, stated that X had not complied with it. TR requested that the tribunal order X to pay an administrative monetary penalty.
In defence, X argued that it had complied with the order by restricting access to the images within Canada and contended that B.C. law couldn’t compel it to take any further steps. As the decision indicates, that wasn’t the case.
As the tribunal noted, the first thing TR had to do was prove that she gave X a copy of the protection order.
“It is obvious from X’s response that she did so because it describes the steps [she] took after receiving the order,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal decision went on to say that one X account persistently posted the intimate image at the centre of the dispute. X said that it had geofenced the image in Canada.
“Not all aspects of the protection order apply to X. The relevant parts required X to remove the intimate image from its platform and delete it. X provided no evidence or submissions about its technology, so I do not know whether X could accomplish both things by deleting a post,” the tribunal decision notes.
X argued that the protection order could not empower the tribunal to eliminate the availability of the images outside of B.C.
The tribunal member overseeing the case said, “So, X’s argument is essentially that the order to remove the intimate image must be interpreted to only require geofencing. Viewed through that lens, X says it complied with my order.”
“I acknowledge that X did not ignore the order. It acted promptly to geofence the intimate image. This act probably reduced the number of people who have seen the intimate image by some unknowable number. However, I find it is a minor point in X’s favour, and certainly not a significant enough mitigating factor to justify any substantial reduction from the daily maximum. I say this for 2 reasons.”
They went on to say that the question of X’s compliance was straightforward and that it had intentionally chosen not to comply.
“The protection order was unambiguous. X’s decision not to comply with it can only be seen as intentional. X’s non-compliance was repeated several times as TR reported more instances where the intimate image appeared in posts.”
X eventually did comply with the order on July 16, 2025, but the order was served on April 14, 2025. For an organization, non-compliance carries a penalty of $5,000 per day, or a maximum of $100,000.
The tribunal noted that X is a “very large corporation with vast resources,” and a monetary penalty of $100,000 was deemed appropriate.
Ultimately, the tribunal ordered X to pay $100,000 to the B.C. Minister of Finance and stated that if non-compliance continued, TR could reapply for another administrative penalty order.