Japan Provider Liability Act Reform: New Sender Disclosure Order System in Practice (2026 Update)

On October 1, 2022, Japan's revised "Act on Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Disclosure of Sender Information" (commonly known as the Provider Liability Limitation Act) came into force. The revision fundamentally overhauled the sender information disclosure system, most notably by establishing a new judicial procedure called the "Sender Information Disclosure Order" (Articles 8-15).

Before the revision, identifying an anonymous defamer online required two separate legal proceedings:

This two-step process suffered from three key problems: (1) prolonged timelines risking deletion of communication logs, (2) high attorney fees (approximately 500,000-800,000 yen total), and (3) the need to file at separate courts for each step.

The disclosure order is designed as a non-contentious proceeding (where the court takes a supervisory role), featuring:

• Single proceeding: Orders against both content providers and access providers can be sought in one proceeding (Article 8)
• Provision order: A mechanism to order the content provider to supply the access provider's identity (Article 15)
• Deletion prohibition order: An order to prevent log deletion can be filed concurrently (Article 16)
• Expedited review: As a non-contentious proceeding, review is primarily document-based with no oral argument required

Disclosure is granted when:

1. Clear infringement of rights: It is evident that the post infringed rights such as reputation or privacy
2. Legitimate reason: A legitimate purpose such as pursuing a damages claim exists
3. Distribution via specified telecommunications: The content was posted on the internet

A major pre-reform challenge was login-type posts - posts made after logging into platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, or Facebook. These platforms often did not retain the IP address at the time of posting, making identification extremely difficult.

Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the revised Act now expressly includes login-session communications (infringement-related communications) as subject to disclosure.

Approximately three and a half years after implementation, the disclosure order system has entered a period of stable operation.

The disclosure order approval rate has been running at approximately 60-70%, with the standard for "clear rights infringement" understood to be roughly equivalent to the former provisional disposition standard. Rejections have been seen in cases involving statements within the realm of opinion or commentary and posts serving the public interest.

Key trends observed primarily at the Tokyo District Court include:

• Disclosure orders against X (formerly Twitter): Numerous cases granting disclosure of login-session IP addresses
• Disclosure orders for Google reviews: Increasing approvals based on business reputation infringement
• Disclosure orders against Instagram and TikTok: Service of process on foreign entities is time-consuming, but approvals have been obtained

Disclosure orders against X Corp. (a U.S. entity) are among the most frequently filed. Because X is login-type, pre-reform disclosure was extremely difficult, but the revised law now enables disclosure of login-session IP addresses. Practical challenges remain, including 2-4 weeks for service of process on the U.S. entity and X's reluctance toward voluntary disclosure.

Disclosure requests against Meta (Instagram and Facebook) are also increasing. Meta tends to be comparatively cooperative with voluntary disclosure, but its short log retention period (approximately 90 days) makes prompt filing essential.

Disclosure requests regarding Google Maps reviews are primarily filed by businesses such as restaurants, medical practices, and professional firms. Since Google retains posting-time IP addresses, traditional disclosure requests remain viable, though use of the disclosure order system is growing.

The reform has significantly improved access to legal remedies against online defamation. The reduction to fee levels that make it practical for individuals to retain counsel is a particularly important development.

However, several challenges have been identified:

• Delays in service on overseas platforms: Service on X Corp. in particular is time-consuming
• Short log retention periods: ISPs typically retain logs for only 3-6 months, making prompt issuance of deletion prohibition orders critical
• Low damages awards post-disclosure: Defamation consolation damages often remain in the range of several hundred thousand yen
• Balance with anonymous expression: Concerns that lowered disclosure thresholds may create a chilling effect on free speech

• Upon discovering defamation, immediately preserve evidence (screenshots, URLs, posting dates and times) - this is the single most important step
• Due to the risk of log deletion, filing within 2-3 months of discovery is recommended
• The disclosure order and traditional provisional disposition can be used concurrently; case-by-case selection is important
• After a disclosure order is granted, a separate damages lawsuit must be filed against the identified poster (the disclosure order system does not include a damages function)
• Proving "clear rights infringement" under Article 5(1) requires contextual analysis of the post content and specific arguments regarding diminished social reputation

---

*Houritsu no Mikata Editorial Team | Published April 26, 2026*