Responding to Defamation and Rights-Infringing Posts Under Japan's Platform Law

Hello! I am Noriaki Asato, Managing Partner of Legal Agent.

Online defamation, impersonation, privacy violations, business interference, copyright infringement and false information can create serious risks even for an early-stage company.

A post may target a founder or employee, spread false information about a company or service, or arise between users of a platform operated by the company itself. Each situation requires a different response.

In April 2025, Japan's former Provider Liability Limitation Act took effect under its amended title, the Information Distribution Platform Act. The amended framework imposes additional duties concerning the speed and transparency of responses to rights-infringing content on large platform operators designated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

Companies should therefore approach takedowns and rights-infringement complaints as a legal and operational process, rather than treating them only as public-relations issues.

Separate takedown requests from sender-identification procedures

A takedown request and a request to disclose identifying information about the sender serve different purposes.

A takedown request seeks removal of the post to limit continuing harm. A sender-information disclosure request seeks information needed to identify the person responsible so that the affected party can consider damages or criminal action. Japan also provides a non-contentious court procedure known as a sender-information disclosure order.

Removal may reduce the immediate spread of harmful content, but seeking removal before preserving evidence can make later identification and enforcement more difficult. The first response should therefore preserve the post URL, full-page screenshots, timestamps, account information, search results and visible evidence of dissemination.

The company should then decide whether it needs removal, identification, a public correction, direct communication with affected persons, or a combination of these measures. The sequence matters because platform retention periods and the practical availability of access logs can be limited.

Explain the rights infringement precisely

A platform report that merely says a post is offensive or inaccurate may not give the operator enough information to assess the request.

The request should identify the right involved and explain how the specific content infringes it. Depending on the facts, the issue may involve defamation, privacy, copyright, trademark rights, impersonation or unlawful interference with business.

For defamation, the analysis may need to distinguish an assertion of fact from an opinion and address why the post lowers the social reputation of an identifiable person or company. Truth, public interest and the purpose of publication may also become relevant.

For privacy, the request should explain the nature of the information, whether the person can be identified, why the information concerns private life and what harm results from publication. For copyright or trademark claims, the company should identify the protected work or mark, its ownership or authority to act, and the exact unauthorised use.

A useful takedown request is therefore a concise legal explanation supported by preserved evidence. An emotional protest without a clear legal basis can make it harder for the platform to evaluate the complaint quickly.

If your company operates the platform

A company that operates a review site, community, marketplace, social network, message board or matching service may receive complaints rather than make them.

The operator should establish terms of use, content standards, reporting forms, identity-verification procedures, a method for contacting the poster where appropriate, decision criteria, an appeal or reconsideration process, and record-retention rules.

Leaving clearly unlawful content online may expose the operator to claims from the affected person. Removing content too readily, however, may interfere with lawful expression and create disputes with users. The operator needs a process that can distinguish urgent threats and obvious rights infringements from criticism, consumer complaints and other lawful speech.

The process should assign responsibility for receiving complaints, escalating high-risk cases, obtaining legal review and communicating the outcome. Records should show the content reviewed, the information provided by each party, the grounds for the decision and when each step occurred. Consistent records help the company respond to later court orders, regulator questions or challenges from users.

Balance corporate protection with freedom of expression

Not every critical statement about a company is unlawful. Product criticism, comments about working conditions, consumer dissatisfaction and whistleblowing may involve legitimate expression and matters of public interest.

A company should distinguish demonstrably false claims, impersonation, disclosure of personal information, threats and clear rights infringements from uncomfortable but lawful opinions. Attempting to remove every negative post can amplify attention, undermine credibility and create the appearance that the company is suppressing criticism.

A takedown request is both a legal measure and a communications decision. Legal, public-relations and management teams should agree on the objective before acting: stopping imminent harm, correcting the record, protecting an individual, identifying a wrongdoer, or preserving trust with customers and users.

A practical response framework

The response to defamation and rights-infringing posts should separate evidence preservation, takedown, sender identification and public communications. The company should decide the order of these measures based on urgency, the nature of the right, the available evidence and the risk of further dissemination.

Platform operators should prepare their reporting, review, decision and recordkeeping processes before a serious complaint arrives. Companies seeking removal should provide a specific legal explanation and preserve the evidence needed for any later proceedings.

Legal Agent advises both affected companies and platform operators on defamation, impersonation, privacy and copyright claims, takedown requests, sender-information disclosure and platform terms. The practical goal is to protect rights without losing sight of lawful expression, evidence and the business consequences of each response.