Public backs proposal to allow online harms victims to take tech platforms to court

A proposal to let victims of online harms take social media platforms as well as perpetrators to court to seek compensation has received support from most of the respondents in a recent public consultation.

More than 95 per cent of more than 100 respondents backed this proposal to have specified online harms heard in local courts, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) on Mar 6 in its findings.

These harms include online harassment (such as cyberbullying and sexual harassment), intimate image abuse, child abuse material, impersonation, deepfakes and hate speech.

"There was also broad agreement that communicators, administrators, and platforms should be subject to the duties not to commit online harms or to act on online harms that are brought to their notice, and may be sued for damages if they breach those duties" said both ministries, publishing the results of their one-month public consultation that concluded on Dec 22, 2024.

The respondents include members of the public, community groups, academics and major social media companies.

Their support for the proposal was primarily driven by demands to hold perpetrators accountable and deter harmful behaviour, the ministries said in a report of their key findings.

Respondents were also motivated by the need to provide compensation for victims and the importance of compelling platforms to be accountable to their users, the two ministries added.

The industry partners, which were not named, were cited as saying that such policies could lead to overly defensive behavior, cause too much content to be taken down and affect free speech.

There is also the risk of frivolous lawsuits and the need for clearer legal definitions due to the subjective nature of some harms, according to the findings.

Acknowledging the views, MDDI and MinLaw agreed with the need to encourage responsible online behaviour and at the same time mitigate unwanted outcomes through legal means.

But the ministries stood their ground and said that the victim's right to have their grievances heard in court will encourage administrators and platforms to "act reasonably" in response to reports of online harms.

Platforms risk being liable for damages if they do not take steps to address a harm that they are notified of within a reasonable time, according to MDDI and MinLaw's proposal.

The ministries added that at the same time, clear details on the legislation are needed and that frivolous or vexatious complaints should be discouraged with strong deterrent measures.

Another key proposal which received overwhelming support is the setting up of a dedicated government agency to provide timely and effective assistance to victims of online harms.

MDDI and MinLaw proposed that the upcoming agency will be able to order content creators and platforms to disable access to material containing the online harms and order the closure of offending online groups.

More than 90 per cent of respondents in the consultation supported the plans for the new agency, amid intensifying online harms like cyberbullying, deepfakes and child sexual abuse material.

"Respondents agreed that a government-backed agency would add credibility and provide reassurance to those affected by online harms," said MDDI and MinLaw, adding that the new agency would simplify the process of seeking help, without needing victims to go through a lengthy or expensive court process.

Plans to launch a dedicated agency follow Australia's eSafety Commissioner, which is similarly tasked to addressing online harms by investigating complaints and directing platforms to remove content.

The Singapore agency's aim is to make it easier for victims to seek help, ensuring that they are not dissuaded over fears of being bogged down by the often time-consuming process of reporting online harms today, said MDDI and MinLaw.

Industry players were cited by MDDI and MinLaw as saying that the new online harms agency needs to be balanced in addressing complaints, setting out clear parameters, fair processes and a process of appealing.

Agreeing, the two ministries said they will make clear the definitions of online harm, along with examples and guidelines of how the agency will address them.

Respondents also supported a proposal to allow victims to obtain the user information of perpetrators to take the case to court or to protect themselves from the perpetrator.

Roughly four in five respondents indicated that such a policy would be helpful and ensure accountability by preventing wrongdoers from hiding behind online anonymity. Victims would also be more equipped to protect themselves and seek legal recourse, the findings noted.

Industry and other respondents flagged privacy concerns and the potential for the information to be misused, including risks of doxing or vigilantism. They wanted to see a stricter criteria for disclosure and more details on how such disclosures would work.

Some disclaimed that it will be tough to collect and share the data, as it goes against the platforms' data privacy principles and foreign laws. It is yet to be seen how such disclosures would work regarding anonymous accounts, too, according to industry feedback captured during the public consultation.

MDDI and MinLaw pledged to work with industry partners to iron how the process of collecting user information. They also acknowledged concerns over privacy, adding in their findings: "Information should only be used for the victim to pursue legal proceedings or for the protection of the victim."

"We will ensure that the proposals balance transparency with privacy protection through strict safeguards and penalties for misuse," the ministries said, adding that such safeguards include ensuring that sensitive information is handled only by authorised entities and must comply with existing data protection laws.

Thanking the industry for providing their feedback, Digital Development and Information Minister Josephine Teo said in a LinkedIn post on Mar 6: "These conversations have enabled all parties to better understand one another's perspectives and collectively tackle the complexities of online harms."

She added: "These contributions are crucial as we prepare to table the Bill in Parliament in the coming months."