特定電気通信役務提供者の損害賠償責任の制限及び発信者情報の開示に関する法律 (プロバイダ責任制限法、プロバイダー責任法、プロバイダー法、ＩＳＰ責任法) was this Act's title until Act No. 25 of 2024 renamed it from 1 April 2025. The Ministry of Justice's English under that title was the Act on the Limitation of Liability of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers for Damages and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Sender Identification Information.
Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through Specified Telecommunications
特定電気通信による情報の流通によって発生する権利侵害等への対処に関する法律
When a provider whose service sends information to people at large over telecommunications is liable for information on it that infringes someone's rights, how a person who claims to be harmed can have its sender identified, through the courts if need be, and what duties large designated providers have to handle requests to stop such information quickly and to be open about how they stop information.
- Text in force since
- Promulgated
- Articles
- 38
- Amendments on the way
- 2
What this law does
- Where information sent through specified telecommunications (特定電気通信) — telecommunications meant to be received by people not specified in advance — infringes another person's rights, the provider whose facilities carried it is not liable to that person for the damage unless it was technically possible to stop the information being sent to people at large. Even then, the provider is liable only if it knew of the infringement, or knew the information was being carried and there is good reason to find it could have known of the infringement.(Art. 3(1), Art. 3(1)(i), Art. 3(1)(ii), Art. 2(1)(i)) (the provisions it rests on)
Read the full overview
- A provider that stops information being sent is not liable to its sender for doing so, as long as it went no further than needed to stop the information reaching people at large, and either it had good reason to believe the information unjustly infringed someone's rights, or a person claiming infringement asked it to act, showing the information, the right and the reason, and the sender, shown these and asked whether they agreed, did not object within seven days. For election material distributed during an election campaign, a candidate for public office, or a party or group that has filed candidates or a list of candidates, can make such a request about information damaging their reputation, and the wait is then two days. For the same material and within the same limit, the provider is also not liable where such a candidate or party claims damage to their reputation and says the sender's email address or similar contact is not displayed as the Public Offices Election Act (公職選挙法), a separate Act, requires, and it is in fact not displayed correctly on the receiver's screen.(Art. 3(2), Art. 3(2)(i), Art. 3(2)(ii), Art. 4(1), Art. 4(1)(i), Art. 4(1)(ii)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A person who claims that information sent through specified telecommunications infringed their rights can demand that the provider disclose the sender identification information (発信者情報) it holds — the name, address and other items a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order lists — where the infringement is evident and the person needs it to claim damages or has another legitimate reason; the same demand can be made of a provider whose network carried the codes the sender sent to use the service or stop using it, as that Order defines them. Information relating only to those codes can be demanded from the first provider only where, in addition, it holds no other sender information on the infringement, or holds only information that Order lists which gives neither the sender's name and address nor a way to identify another provider, or the information already disclosed does not identify the sender. The provider must ask the sender's opinion on the demand, unless it cannot reach them or there are other special circumstances, and is liable for refusing only where it acted intentionally or with gross negligence.(Art. 5(1), Art. 5(1)(i), Art. 5(1)(ii), Art. 5(1)(iii), Art. 5(1)(iii)(a), Art. 5(1)(iii)(b), Art. 5(1)(iii)(c), Art. 5(2), Art. 5(3), Art. 2(1)(x), Art. 6(1), Art. 6(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider must publish a way for people who claim that information on its service infringes their rights to ask it to stop that information: one that can be used online, does not overburden them, and shows them when the request was received. It must look into each request made that way without delay, appointing violating-information investigation specialists (侵害情報調査専門員), people with enough knowledge and experience, at least as many as a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order sets for the service's number of senders and type, for what needs expert knowledge. Within a period that Order sets, of no more than 14 days from receiving the request, it must tell the requester whether it acted and, if it did not, why.(Art. 22(1), Art. 22(2), Art. 23(1), Art. 24(1), Art. 24(2), Art. 25(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider may stop information on its service being sent, or stop providing the service to its sender, only under standards it has set and published in advance, by a period a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order fixes, apart from the cases the Act lists. When it stops information, it must without delay tell the sender, or make it easy for them to learn, that it did so and why; where it acted under its standards, the reason must show how the action relates to them. Once a year it must publish how it received requests, gave notices and stopped information, with its own evaluation.(Art. 26(1), Art. 2(1)(ix), Art. 27(1), Art. 28(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider must take the measures its service's features call for to lessen the harm done by information on it that may damage the fairness of elections — information that breaks the law, is false or distorts the facts, among others — and include how it took them in its yearly publication. The Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications sets and publishes guidelines for these measures.This is the rule from 1 March 2027.(Art. 27-2(1), Art. 27-2(2), Art. 27-2(3), Art. 28(1)(v)) (the provisions it rests on)
Limits on a provider's liabilityElection candidates' requestsDemanding the sender's identityCourt disclosure orderDesignated large-scale providersRequests to stop infringing informationStandards for stopping informationPenalties
Contents
38 108 84 7 47
- Chapter I General Provisions第一章 総則Articles 1–2 · 2
- Chapter II Limitation of Liability for Damages第二章 損害賠償責任の制限Articles 3–4 · 2
- Chapter III Demand for Disclosure of Sender Identification Information第三章 発信者情報の開示請求等Articles 5–7 · 3
- Chapter IV Court Proceedings for Case of Sender Identification Information Disclosure Order第四章 発信者情報開示命令事件に関する裁判手続Articles 8–19 · 12
- Chapter V Obligations of Large-scale Specified Telecommunications Service Providers第五章 大規模特定電気通信役務提供者の義務Articles 20–34 · 15
- Chapter VI Penal Provisions第六章 罰則Articles 35–38 · 4
Amendments
A Japanese law is changed by another law or order that rewrites it — an . This law has 2 amendments on the way — , but . Its latest amendments are below. This law's amendments page lists every amendment e-Gov records and, for those whose changes this site has read, shows them provision by provision, in Japanese and English.
1 March 2027
in 4 months
Act Partially Amending the Public Offices Election Act and the Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through Specified Telecommunications
公職選挙法及び特定電気通信による情報の流通によって発生する権利侵害等への対処に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
By 13 June 2028
at the latest, in 2 years
Act on the Arrangement of Related Acts to Promote the Use of Information and Communications Technology in Civil Procedures, etc.
民事関係手続等における情報通信技術の活用等の推進を図るための関係法律の整備に関する法律
On a day set by , no later than 13 June 2028 — the amending law allows up to five years from . The exact day is not fixed yet.
8 amendments already in force
17 July 2026
The text on this site
Act Partially Amending the Public Offices Election Act and the Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through Specified Telecommunications
公職選挙法及び特定電気通信による情報の流通によって発生する権利侵害等への対処に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
21 May 2026
Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure, etc.
民事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律
1 April 2025
Act Partially Amending the Act on the Limitation of Liability of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers for Damages and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Sender Identification Information
特定電気通信役務提供者の損害賠償責任の制限及び発信者情報の開示に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
14 June 2023
Act on the Arrangement of Related Acts to Promote the Use of Information and Communications Technology in Civil Procedures, etc.
民事関係手続等における情報通信技術の活用等の推進を図るための関係法律の整備に関する法律
20 February 2023
Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure, etc.
民事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律
1 October 2022
Act Partially Amending the Act on the Limitation of Liability of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers for Damages and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Sender Identification Information
特定電気通信役務提供者の損害賠償責任の制限及び発信者情報の開示に関する法律の一部を改正する法律
25 May 2022
Act Partially Amending the Code of Civil Procedure, etc.
民事訴訟法等の一部を改正する法律
26 May 2013
e-Gov gives no title for this amendment
Who it applies to
It applies to
- Providers of specified telecommunications services (特定電気通信役務提供者): anyone who provides a telecommunications service using facilities for telecommunications meant to be received by people not specified in advance, with telecommunications as the Telecommunications Business Act (電気通信事業法), a separate Act, defines it. Transmissions meant to be received directly by the public are left out of the definition.(Art. 2(1)(i), Art. 2(1)(ii), Art. 2(1)(iii), Art. 2(1)(iv)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Other telecommunications service providers whose facilities carried the codes a sender sent to use a service or stop using it (relevant telecommunications service providers, 関連電気通信役務提供者), not being the provider of the service the information was sent on, who can be asked to disclose the sender identification information they hold on those communications.(Art. 5(2), Art. 5(3), Art. 2(1)(xi)) (the provisions it rests on)
5 more
- People who claim that information sent through specified telecommunications infringed their rights, who can demand disclosure from providers and petition a court for a disclosure order.(Art. 5(1), Art. 5(2), Art. 8(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Senders (発信者) — anyone who records information on, or enters it into, a provider's facilities from which it is sent to people not specified in advance — and anyone who receives a sender's identification information through a disclosure, who must not misuse it to unjustly harm the sender's reputation or peaceful life.(Art. 2(1)(v), Art. 7(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Large-scale specified telecommunications service providers (大規模特定電気通信役務提供者): providers the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications designates because, for their service, the average monthly number of senders, counting persons a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order treats alike, or the average monthly count of senders counting repeats (延べ数), in each case not counting those presumed to be abroad, exceeds a figure that Order sets for its type; stopping infringing information on it is technically possible; it is not of a kind that Order lists as unlikely to lead to infringement of rights; and the need to speed up handling of requests to stop information and make its actions transparent is especially high. The Minister must lift a designation once its grounds are gone. A designated provider must file a notification with the Minister within three months of designation, and its other duties under the Act bind it once it has filed.This is the rule until 28 February 2027.(Art. 20(1), Art. 20(1)(i)(a), Art. 20(1)(i)(b), Art. 20(1)(ii), Art. 20(1)(iii), Art. 20(2), Art. 21(1), Art. 22(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Large-scale specified telecommunications service providers (大規模特定電気通信役務提供者): providers the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications designates because, for their service, the average monthly number of senders, counting persons a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order treats alike, or the average monthly count of senders counting repeats (延べ数), in each case not counting those presumed to be abroad, exceeds a figure that Order sets for its type; stopping infringing information on it is technically possible; it is not of a kind that Order lists as unlikely to lead to infringement of rights or similar harm; and the need to speed up handling of requests to stop information and make its actions transparent, or to take the other measures their duties require, is especially high. The Minister must lift a designation once its grounds are gone, and a designation made under the earlier wording counts as made under this one. A designated provider must file a notification with the Minister within three months of designation, and its other duties under the Act bind it once it has filed.This is the rule from 1 March 2027.(Art. 20(1), Art. 20(1)(i)(a), Art. 20(1)(i)(b), Art. 20(1)(ii), Art. 20(1)(iii), Art. 20(2), Art. 21(1), Art. 22(1), Suppl. Prov. Art. 3(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider that is a foreign company or body, or an individual living abroad, must include in its notification the name and Japanese address of its representative or agent in Japan, and must notify any change without delay.(Art. 21(1), Art. 21(1)(ii), Art. 21(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
Special rules and exceptions (4)
- A provider that is itself the sender of the infringing information gets neither limit on its liability: not toward the person whose rights were infringed, nor toward a person whose disclosure demand it refused.(Art. 3(1), Art. 6(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider need not tell a requester the outcome where that requester made the same request before or there is another good reason not to. Where it decides to hear the sender, to have a specialist investigate, or there is another unavoidable reason, it may tell the requester the outcome without delay after deciding instead, but must still tell them within the set period which of these applies, and in the last case what the reason is.(Art. 25(1), Art. 25(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider may stop information outside its published standards where it is itself the sender, where a legal duty requires it to (a duty only to try does not count), or where an emergency calls for it and the kind of information could not normally have been foreseen and so is not named in the standards. After acting in such an emergency, it must promptly amend its standards to cover that kind of information.(Art. 26(1)(i), Art. 26(1)(ii), Art. 26(1)(iii), Art. 26(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A designated large-scale provider need not tell a sender that it stopped their information where it is itself the sender, where it has already told the same sender about stopping similar information for a similar reason, or where there is another good reason not to.(Art. 27(1)(i), Art. 27(1)(ii)) (the provisions it rests on)
How it is enforced (10)
- Its penalties reach only the rules on large-scale providers: the duties of designated providers, and any provider's duty to report its numbers of senders when the Minister asks in order to decide on designation. The rules on liability and disclosure state what holds between the parties — when a provider is not liable for damages, and who can demand disclosure — and a court can order disclosure on a petition from the person claiming infringement.(Art. 3(1), Art. 5(1), Art. 8(1), Art. 35(1), Art. 36(1), Art. 38(1), Art. 38(1)(i), Art. 20(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- A person claiming infringement can petition a district court for a sender identification information disclosure order (発信者情報開示命令) against the provider; unless the petition is unlawful or plainly groundless, the court sends the provider a copy and hears the parties before ruling. A party who disagrees with the ruling, other than one dismissing the petition as unlawful, can bring an objection action within one month of being notified of it, a period that cannot be extended; if none is brought, or it is dismissed, the ruling has the effect of a final judgment, and a judgment upholding or changing the ruling that orders disclosure can be enforced like a judgment ordering performance. A provider ordered to disclose must tell a sender who had opposed disclosure, without delay, unless that is difficult.(Art. 8(1), Art. 10(1), Art. 11(1), Art. 11(3), Art. 14(1), Art. 14(4), Art. 14(5), Art. 6(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- While the disclosure case is pending, the court can, on the petitioner's application and where needed to keep the sender identifiable, order the provider to give the petitioner the name and address of another provider its records identify, or say it cannot, and later, once the petitioner tells it that a disclosure petition has been filed against that other provider, to pass its sender identification information to that provider (an information provision order, 提供命令). It can also order the provider not to delete the sender identification information until the case ends (a deletion prohibitory order, 消去禁止命令), and the provider can file an immediate appeal (即時抗告) against either order. A provision order lapses when the case ends, and, as to another provider, if within two months of receiving its name and address the petitioner has not told the ordered provider that a petition against it has been filed.(Art. 15(1), Art. 15(1)(i), Art. 15(1)(ii), Art. 15(3), Art. 15(3)(i), Art. 15(3)(ii), Art. 15(5), Art. 16(1), Art. 16(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Japanese courts can hear a petition against a business that operates in Japan, including a foreign company that trades in Japan on a continuing basis, where the petition concerns its business in Japan. The parties can agree in writing, or in an electronic record, on which country's courts a petition may go to, but an agreement naming only foreign courts cannot be relied on where those courts cannot exercise jurisdiction in law or in fact. Even where Japanese courts have jurisdiction, the court can dismiss a petition in whole or part where special circumstances make a hearing in Japan unfair between the parties or an obstacle to a proper and prompt one, unless it was filed under an agreement naming Japanese courts alone.(Art. 9(1)(iii), Art. 9(2), Art. 9(3), Art. 9(4), Art. 9(5), Art. 9(6)) (the provisions it rests on)
- The district court for the respondent's address or office hears the petition — for a company with no office in Japan, the court for the address of its representative or main person in charge of business, and where no court is fixed this way, the court for a place Supreme Court Rules set — or a district court the parties have agreed on in writing. The petition can also be filed in the Tokyo District Court where it would go to a district court in the Tokyo, Nagoya, Sendai or Sapporo High Court districts, or in the Osaka District Court where it would go to one in the Osaka, Hiroshima, Fukuoka or Takamatsu High Court districts. A petition by a person claiming infringement of a patent, utility model right, circuit layout right or author's rights in a computer program must go to the Tokyo or Osaka District Court on the same split.(Art. 10(1), Art. 10(1)(iii), Art. 10(2), Art. 10(3), Art. 10(4), Art. 10(5)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Petitions and other statements in a disclosure case follow the Code of Civil Procedure's chapter on concealing a party's address, name and the like (当事者に対する住所、氏名等の秘匿), which a separate Act sets out and this Act applies to these cases with adjusted wording.(Art. 17(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- The Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications can require providers to report their numbers of senders, as far as needed to designate a provider or lift a designation, and, where reports make those numbers hard to establish, estimate them by a reasonable method a Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Order sets and act on the estimate. The Minister can also require designated providers to report on their business as far as needed to enforce their duties. Where a designated provider breaches its duties to publish a request method, appoint specialists, notify requesters, follow its published standards and amend them after an emergency removal, notify senders or publish its yearly report, the Minister can recommend it put this right, and order it to if it fails without good reason.(Art. 20(3), Art. 20(4), Art. 29(1), Art. 30(1), Art. 30(2)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Breaking the Minister's order is punishable by imprisonment () of up to one year or a fine of up to 1,000,000 yen. Failing to file the notifications owed after designation, including of later changes, or the business report the Minister requires of a designated provider, or filing a false one, is punishable by a fine of up to 500,000 yen. Where a company's representative, or a company's or individual's agent or employee, does this in its business, the company can also be fined up to 100,000,000 yen for breaking the order or the notification duty, and up to 500,000 yen for the report, and an individual employer the same amounts as the person who acted.(Art. 35(1), Art. 36(1), Art. 37(1)) (the provisions it rests on)
- Failing without good reason to report numbers of senders when the Minister asks for designation or its lifting, or reporting falsely, brings a non-penal fine (過料) of up to 300,000 yen. So does failing to notify the Minister of the appointment of investigation specialists, or of later changes, or notifying falsely.(Art. 38(1), Art. 38(1)(i), Art. 38(1)(ii), Art. 20(3), Art. 24(3)) (the provisions it rests on)
- The designation, demands for business reports from designated providers, recommendations and orders are made by serving documents. Where the place to serve them is unknown, service abroad cannot be made, or no proof of service has come six months after asking the foreign authority, the Minister can serve by public notice (公示送達), which takes effect two weeks after it starts, or six weeks for service abroad.(Art. 31(1), Art. 33(1), Art. 33(1)(i), Art. 33(1)(ii), Art. 33(1)(iii), Art. 33(3), Art. 33(4)) (the provisions it rests on)
How it connects to other laws
Cites this lawLawThis law cites it
It also names 13 laws not yet held here.
Where the translation comes from
- 110
- 155
The Ministry of Justice's translation is shown only where the Japanese it translates matches the law in force today. Everywhere else the English is a machine translation, marked on the paragraph itself.
Only the Japanese is the law, and no lawyer has reviewed the machine translation.
Sources
Everything this page rests on
- e-Gov (Digital Agency)特定電気通信による情報の流通によって発生する権利侵害等への対処に関する法律 — the text in force from 2026-07-17Original
- e-Gov (Digital Agency)特定電気通信による情報の流通によって発生する権利侵害等への対処に関する法律 — revision historyOriginal
- Japanese Law Translation, Ministry of JusticeAct on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through Specified Telecommunications — Ministry of Justice translationOriginal
- Machine translation, not official
- Written for this site with AIEnglish titles of amending laws, written for this site
- Written for this site with AIFormer names of renamed laws
- Written for this site with AIDescriptions of each law, written for this site
- Written for this site with AIEnglish title of a law in this collection, written for this site
- Written for this site with AICorrections to the Ministry of Justice's English of paragraphs
- Worked out by this site from e-Gov's text