B.C. Attorney General Defends Image Removal Order Against X Corp.

British Columbia’s Attorney General, Nikki Sharma, expressed significant concern over X Corp.‘s legal challenge regarding a court order to remove a non-consensual intimate image from its platform. The social media company is contesting a directive from the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal aimed at enforcing the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act.

The tribunal had ordered X Corp. to delete the image after a transgender complainant from British Columbia, whose identity is protected in court documents, sought a protection order earlier this year. In response, the company claimed it “promptly complied” by implementing a practice known as “geo-blocking,” which restricts access to the image within Canada but does not remove it from other jurisdictions.

Legal Actions and Implications

In September, the tribunal imposed a penalty of $100,000 on X Corp. for failing to delete the image globally. The tribunal maintained that merely blocking access within Canadian borders fell short of adequate protection for the complainant. The ruling emphasized that survivors deserve comprehensive safeguards against the distribution of intimate images without consent.

X Corp.’s recent petition, filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, argues that a global blocking order would infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations and could potentially restrict free speech worldwide. The company claims that if such orders are recognized, they would allow authoritarian regimes to dictate the content available on the internet based on the most restrictive laws.

“If courts in different countries can issue global blocking orders based on their own laws, it would result in a situation where the country with the most restrictive laws would dictate what content is available on the internet,” the petition states.

The company’s petition further warns that such measures could legitimize oppressive practices by governments that do not fully respect freedom of speech and public access to information.

Provincial Response and Advocacy

In light of these developments, Nikki Sharma announced that the province plans to join the legal proceedings to uphold the laws designed to protect individuals from non-consensual intimate imagery. In her statement released on November 13, 2025, Sharma emphasized that “under B.C. law, these images must be removed when ordered to do so, without exceptions.” She asserted that simply blocking access within the province is insufficient and that survivors deserve full protection.

The complainant responded to X Corp.‘s petition by labeling it an “abuse of process” and a direct challenge to the tribunal’s lawful order. This case has raised significant questions about the balance between free speech and the protection of individual rights in the digital age. As the proceedings unfold, the implications for social media companies and the enforcement of local laws will be closely monitored.

This situation highlights the ongoing complexities surrounding digital privacy and the responsibilities of social media platforms in safeguarding personal rights. As the B.C. Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the outcome may set important precedents for how intimate images are handled across different jurisdictions.