# Court order against social media platform, by country

Court order against social media platform: what a judge can make a platform or search engine do in the US, UK, EU and Canada, and where orders fail.

---


A court order against a social media platform to remove content is possible in some countries and structurally difficult in others, and the difference comes from how each legal system treats a platform that did not write the post. In the United States, a federal statute says an interactive computer service is not treated as the publisher of what other people post. In England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013 gives a court an express power to order a website operator to remove a statement after the claimant has won. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act sets the minimum content of orders but leaves the legal basis to national law.

This guide reads the primary text for each of those routes and for one Canadian Supreme Court decision on search engines. Four places are covered: the United States, England and Wales, the European Union and Canada. Australia gets a short note on what could be read. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates and the individual EU member states are not covered at all. Where a rule could not be read, the text says so.

This is general information, not legal advice. Orders are drafted for a specific court, a specific platform entity and a specific set of web addresses, and a local lawyer decides what is available to you. What follows is a map of the questions that lawyer will ask first.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>A court order usually binds the person it is addressed to. To bind a platform, the legal system must let a court (or an authority) address the platform directly, and the places we read do this in very different ways.</li><li>England and Wales has a statutory removal order against a website operator (section 13) and a notice-of-complaint defence (section 5). The United States shields platforms from treatment as publisher and limits the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments.</li><li>The EU Digital Services Act does not create the right to an order. It sets what an order must contain and how the platform reports back.</li><li>A search engine is a different target from a platform. Canada's Supreme Court upheld a worldwide order against a search engine in a non-defamation case.</li><li>Orders fail on drafting, on the wrong defendant, and on borders. Get the author and the web addresses right before anything else.</li></ul></div>

## Four kinds of order decide what a platform can be made to do

Four different instruments get called "a court order against a platform", and they work in different ways. The first is a judgment against the author, which a platform may or may not act on. The second is an order a court addresses directly to the platform or website operator. The third is an order from a public authority, which in the EU can be administrative as well as judicial. The fourth is a statutory notice scheme, where a complaint changes the platform's legal position without any court.

Most confusion comes from mixing these: a claimant wins against a poster and assumes the platform must remove the post. The table shows the instruments read for this guide.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Place and instrument</th><th>Who it reaches</th><th>What it can require</th><th>Limit found in the text</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>United States, 47 U.S.C. 230</strong></td><td>Providers and users of interactive computer services</td><td>Not an order: a bar on treating them as publisher or speaker of another person's information</td><td>Carve-outs for federal criminal law and intellectual property; state law inconsistent with the section is barred</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>United States, 28 U.S.C. 4102</strong></td><td>Foreign defamation judgments sought to be enforced in the US</td><td>Enforcement only after the court makes the findings the statute lists</td><td>Burden on the party seeking enforcement; against a provider, the judgment must be consistent with section 230</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>England and Wales, Defamation Act 2013 s5</strong></td><td>Operator of a website</td><td>A defence for the operator, lost if it ignores a valid complaint and the poster cannot be identified</td><td>Applies to defamation claims against the operator over a posted statement</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>England and Wales, Defamation Act 2013 s13</strong></td><td>Website operator, or a person who is not author, editor or publisher</td><td>Removal, or stopping distribution, after the claimant has succeeded</td><td>Comes only after a ruling for the claimant</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>EU, Digital Services Act Article 9</strong></td><td>Providers of intermediary services</td><td>Action against specific items of illegal content, under a legal basis found elsewhere</td><td>Minimum conditions only; territorial scope limited to what is strictly necessary</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Canada, Equustek (2017 SCC 34)</strong></td><td>A non-party search engine</td><td>An interlocutory injunction to stop indexing certain websites, with worldwide reach</td><td>A dispute between companies, not defamation; the ordinary injunction test still applies</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## The United States: section 230 limits what a platform can be held to

In the United States the starting point is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">47 U.S.C. 230</a>. Subsection (c)(1) says no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Subsection (f)(3) defines that second term as any person or entity responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the information. Read together, a platform is protected for what its users wrote, and loses protection for content it helped create or develop.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Limit</span>
<h4>Section 230 is not a bar on every claim</h4>
<p>Subsection (e) says it does not impair federal criminal statutes and does not limit or expand intellectual property law. It lets states enforce state law only where that law is consistent with the section, and bars any cause of action under inconsistent state or local law.</p>
</aside>

What the section does not say is how courts treat a request that a platform remove content once a court has found it unlawful against the author. The text read concerns liability, not injunctions, and case law on orders against non-party platforms was not read, so this guide takes no position on it. A US lawyer will tell you whether such an order can be sought in your state.

The second federal provision matters when your order comes from another country. Under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4102">28 U.S.C. 4102</a>(a), a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation unless it determines either that the foreign defamation law gave at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment, or that the person opposing enforcement would have been found liable by a US court applying the First Amendment. Under 4102(b), it must also find that the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction met US due process requirements. Under 4102(c), a court shall not enforce a foreign defamation judgment against the provider of an interactive computer service unless it determines the judgment would be consistent with section 230 had the information been provided in the United States. The party seeking enforcement bears the burden on each of these showings.

The consequence is simple to state. A foreign judgment against a platform for what a user posted faces three statutory tests in a US court, and the claimant carries the burden on each. That does not make foreign judgments worthless. They can bind the author, or a defendant with assets or operations in the country that issued them.

## England and Wales: section 5 and section 13 are two different routes

England and Wales has the most detailed statutory scheme of the places read. Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 applies where a defamation action is brought against a website operator over a statement posted on the site. It gives the operator a defence if it shows it did not post the statement. The defence fails if the claimant shows that the poster cannot be identified, that the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint, and that the operator did not respond as the regulations require. Subsection (4) adds that a poster can be identified only if the claimant has enough information to bring proceedings against that person. The defence also fails if the operator acted with malice, and it is not defeated merely because the operator moderates user posts.

A notice of complaint, under subsection (6), must give the complainant's name, set out the statement and why it is defamatory, and say where it appears on the website. The regulations behind section 5 set the response steps. The Schedule to the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 is the part to read closely, because a missed step can cost the operator its defence.

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>Timeline of the default process after a notice of complaint</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Within 48 hours of the notice</b>The operator sends the poster a copy of the complaint, with the complainant's name and address hidden if the complainant has not agreed to sharing them. It warns that the statement may be removed unless the poster responds, and that the poster's details will not go to the complainant without consent or a court order. It also acknowledges the complaint to the complainant in writing.</li>
<li><b>By midnight at the end of the fifth day</b>This is the poster's deadline: the fifth day after the notice to the poster is sent. A valid response says whether the poster wants the statement removed and, if not, gives full name, postal address and whether those details may be passed to the complainant.</li>
<li><b>Within 48 hours of a removal outcome</b>If the poster wants removal or responds on time with incomplete details, the operator removes the statement and tells the complainant within 48 hours of the response. If the poster does not respond, the 48 hours run from the deadline.</li>
<li><b>Within 48 hours of a refusal</b>If the poster refuses removal and gives valid details, the operator tells the complainant the statement has not been removed, and passes on the poster's details only if the poster consented.</li>
</ol>
<p class="fig-src">Source: Schedule to the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013, paragraphs 2 to 9, on legislation.gov.uk. Two shortcuts also apply: with no means of contacting the poster by private electronic communication the operator must remove within 48 hours, and a complainant who has twice had substantially the same statement, by the same poster on the same site, removed under the Schedule can trigger removal within 48 hours of a third complaint.</p>
</figure>

Section 13 is a different instrument. Titled "Order to remove statement or cease distribution etc", it lets a court, after giving judgment for the claimant in a defamation action, order the operator of a website where the statement is posted to remove it, or order a person who was not the author, editor or publisher to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing it. The terms author, editor and publisher carry the meaning given in section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. The court's other powers are not affected. Section 13 and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5">section 5</a> both extend to England and Wales and came into force on 1 January 2014.

Section 5 is a pressure route that can work without a judgment. Section 13 is the court route that follows a win. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own rules, which this guide did not read.

## The European Union: Article 9 sets the shape of an order, national law supplies the right to one

The Digital Services Act (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng">Regulation 2022/2065</a>) is often described as the EU's platform takedown law. It is not, in the sense most people mean. Recital 31, read on EUR-Lex, says the regulation does not provide the legal basis for issuing orders and does not regulate their territorial scope or cross-border enforcement. It harmonizes only minimum conditions, needed so providers can tell authorities what effect they gave an order. The legal basis, and the question of whether content is illegal, come from other EU or national law.

The EUR-Lex text available for this guide ran only as far as the recitals, so Articles 6 and 9 were read on a reproduction of the regulation, and the recitals on EUR-Lex. Article 9 applies to orders to act against specific illegal content. The order must contain the legal basis, a statement of reasons explaining why the content is illegal by reference to specific provisions, identification of the issuing authority, information to locate the content such as exact URLs, the redress mechanisms available to the provider and to the person who posted, and where applicable the authority that should receive the report on action taken. Its territorial scope must be limited to what is strictly necessary. It must be in a language the provider has declared or another agreed official language, sent to its designated electronic contact point, with a translation of the key elements where it is in the issuing authority's language. The platform must tell the issuing authority without undue delay what effect it gave the order, and must inform the affected user of the order, its reasons and the redress available.

Recital 36 adds that in cross-border cases the effect of an order should in principle be limited to the issuing member state, with exceptions where the illegality derives directly from Union law or where the issuing authority considers the rights at stake require a wider scope. Recital 109 states the regulation does not require member states to give authorities the power to decide whether specific content is lawful. The DSA is a procedure standard, not a source of rights.

The hosting protection has an older text. The e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), Article 14, protects a hosting provider from liability for stored information unless it has actual knowledge of illegal activity or information (or, for damages, awareness of facts making it apparent) and fails to act quickly to remove or disable access. Paragraph 3 of that article leaves intact the power of a court or administrative authority, under national law, to require the provider to terminate or prevent an infringement. The DSA's hosting article (Article 6, read on the reproduction) follows the same structure, including that preserved power in paragraph 4.

Two practical points follow. An order must name the specific content. And the recitals say notices should be sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated (recital 22), and that a notice allowing a diligent provider to identify clear illegality without a detailed legal examination counts as giving actual knowledge (recital 53). A well-built notice can therefore move a platform before any court is involved. The operative text of the DSA's notice article (Article 16) could not be read for this guide.

## Canada: Equustek shows a court order reaching a search engine that was not a party to the wrong

Canada's contribution to this subject is a decision about search engines, not social media. In <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/16701/1/document.do">Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34</a>, decided on June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada, by seven judges to two, upheld an interlocutory injunction from the Supreme Court of British Columbia requiring a search engine to stop indexing or referencing certain websites in its results until trial or further order. The dispute was between companies, not a defamation claim, so it shows the power to order, not a speech test.

Three points from the judgment, as read in the Court's decision, matter for anyone comparing countries. First, a court with jurisdiction over a party can order conduct to stop anywhere where that is necessary to make the order effective. The Court said that "the Internet has no borders", and that a Canada-only order would not have protected the claimant. Second, a non-party can be bound if it is so involved in another person's wrongdoing that it facilitates the harm, even without wrongdoing of its own. The ordinary test for an interlocutory injunction still applies: a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and balance of convenience. Third, the Court called the search engine's concerns about comity and foreign law theoretical because it had no evidence that complying would breach another country's law, and said it could apply to vary the order if it did. Two of the nine justices dissented, mainly because they saw the order as effectively final and mandatory, and as unlikely to be an effective remedy.

The case does not settle how Canadian courts treat injunctions against social media platforms in defamation cases; that needs a separate reading, which this guide did not do. The principle is that an order against an intermediary that did not write the content is possible, and can be global in reach.

## Australia: only the contents page of one statute could be read

The reading for this guide fell short on Australia, and the gap is better stated than hidden. The contents page of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) on the Federal Register of Legislation lists removal notices given to providers of social media services under three separate parts: section 65 (Part 5, cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child), section 77 (Part 6, non-consensual sharing of intimate images) and section 88 (Part 7, cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult). The text of those sections, including who can complain and the time allowed to comply, could not be read. This guide therefore makes no statement on how Australian courts treat orders against platforms. Defamation there is state law, so an Australian lawyer must check the state where the claim would be brought.

## Which route fits which situation

The table sorts situations by who you can identify and what you hold. It shows where a lawyer would look first, not what a court will decide.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Your situation</th><th>First route to check</th><th>Why</th><th>Where it breaks</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Anonymous poster, site operated in England or Wales</strong></td><td>Notice of complaint under section 5</td><td>The operator keeps its defence only by following the regulations</td><td>Notice missing the required contents, or poster identifiable</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Judgment won in England, post still online</strong></td><td>Section 13 order to the website operator</td><td>The court can order removal after a ruling for the claimant</td><td>The operator is outside the court's reach</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Foreign judgment, US platform</strong></td><td>Local counsel on 28 U.S.C. 4102</td><td>The statute governs recognition and enforcement</td><td>Section 230 consistency test; burden on you</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Illegal content on a platform in the EU</strong></td><td>National law route plus a precise notice to the platform</td><td>The DSA sets order form; hosting protection depends on acting after knowledge</td><td>Order without exact URLs or reasons</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Content tied to a wider wrong, search engine as the lever</strong></td><td>Counsel on a Canadian-style injunction against an intermediary</td><td>Equustek shows non-party orders are possible</td><td>Needs proof the harm cannot be stopped otherwise</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## A worked scenario with stated assumptions

This is an invented scenario with generic parties. A consultancy owner, the claimant, finds a false statement about her firm on an independent forum run by a small company in England. The poster is anonymous. She has no judgment and no idea who posted it.

Assume her lawyer concludes the statement is actionable. The first step is a notice of complaint to the operator with what subsection (6) requires: her name, the statement, why it is defamatory, and where it appears. If the forum has no private means of contacting the poster, the operator must remove within 48 hours. If it does, the poster has until midnight at the end of the fifth day to respond. If the poster stays silent, the statement comes down. If the poster responds with full details and refuses removal, the statement stays and, if the poster consented, the claimant learns who wrote it and can decide whether to sue the author.

Now change one fact. The forum is a US company. Section 5 does not reach it, and any English judgment faces 4102 in a US court, with the section 230 test for judgments against the provider. The lawyer will then ask whether the author can be identified and sued and whether a US route exists at all. The decision turned on one fact: where the operator is.

## Where court orders against platforms fail

Orders fail in predictable places, all checkable before filing. The first is the wrong defendant. A judgment against a poster does not bind a platform that was not a party. In the systems read here the platform is bound through a statutory power (section 13), an authority's order (DSA) or a doctrine on non-parties (Equustek).

The second is drafting. The DSA's list of required contents is a good checklist: legal basis, reasons tied to specific provisions, exact URLs, issuer, and how to challenge it. An order that names a person, a brand or a theme gives the platform nothing to act on.

The third is borders. The US statute on foreign defamation judgments, the DSA's recital on territorial scope and the Canadian court's comity discussion all point the same way: an order is strongest where the addressee is. A global order is a larger request than a national one. Defamation tests and limitation periods vary by country and are not repeated here.

The fourth failure is mistaking an administrative removal notice for a court order. They come from different bodies, on different standards, with different consequences, and a notice scheme such as the one listed in the Australian statute's contents is not a ruling in your favor.

## Next step: collect the five facts a lawyer will ask for first

Before any filing, gather the web address of each post, the exact words, the date you first saw it, whether the author is identifiable, and where the platform's operating company is established. With those five facts a lawyer can say quickly which instrument, if any, is available.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Do not draft the order yourself. Save the pages with dates, list the exact addresses, and talk to a local lawyer in the country where the platform and the poster are based. If you want a second opinion on which route to try first, start with a private review. <a href="/remove-negative-content">See our removal service</a>.</p></div>

Reputation Partners works alongside your counsel, preparing the evidence and handling the platform and search engine side once an order or a notice exists.

## Questions people ask

### Can a court order a social media platform to delete a post?

In some countries, yes. In England and Wales, section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 lets a court order a website operator to remove a statement after ruling for the claimant. In the United States, 47 U.S.C. 230 limits treating a platform as the publisher of user content. The answer depends on the country, the claim and the platform entity addressed.

### Does a court order against the poster bind the platform?

Not by itself. A judgment against an author binds the author. A platform that was not a party is bound only through a statutory power, an authority's order or a doctrine on non-parties. Whether a platform acts on a judgment voluntarily under its own terms is a separate question, and those terms were not read for this guide.

### Can I get a US platform to follow a foreign judgment?

A US court may recognize or enforce a foreign defamation judgment only after the findings in 28 U.S.C. 4102 are made, and the person seeking enforcement carries the burden. Against a platform, the judgment must also be consistent with section 230. Take advice from a US lawyer before relying on a foreign judgment.

### What must an EU order against illegal content contain?

Article 9 of the Digital Services Act lists the legal basis, reasons referring to specific provisions, the issuing authority, information to locate the content such as exact URLs, the redress available, and where applicable the authority to report to. The scope must be limited to what is strictly necessary. The right to the order itself comes from national or other EU law.

### Can a court order a search engine to stop listing a site worldwide?

In Canada, the Supreme Court upheld such an order in Google v. Equustek in 2017, in a case about a defendant's websites, not defamation. It reasoned that the harm was global and a local order would not work. Other countries decide differently, and this guide did not read their rules.

### How long does a platform have to act on a complaint in England?

Under the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013, the default process has 48-hour steps for the operator and a poster deadline of midnight at the end of the fifth day after notification. If the operator has no private way to contact the poster, it must remove the statement within 48 hours. These apply to complaints under section 5, not to every platform report.