Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through Specified Telecommunications

In this Act, the meanings of the terms set forth in the following items are as prescribed respectively in those items:

the term "specified telecommunications" means transmitting information through telecommunications intended to be received by unspecified persons, telecommunications as defined in Article 2 item (i) of the Telecommunications Business Act (Law No. 86 of 1984); hereinafter the same applies in this item and Article 5 paragraph (3) (excluding transmitting information through telecommunications intended to be received directly by the public).

the term "specified telecommunications facilities" means telecommunications facilities (meaning telecommunications facilities as defined in Article 2, item (ii) of the Telecommunications Business Act; hereinafter the same applies in Article 5, paragraph (2)) which are used for specified telecommunications;

the term "specified telecommunications service" means telecommunications services (meaning telecommunications services as defined in Article 2, item (iii) of the Telecommunications Business Act; hereinafter the same applies in Article 5, paragraph (2)) provided by using specified telecommunications facilities;

the term "specified telecommunications service provider" means a person who provides specified telecommunications services;

the term "sender" means a person who records information in a recording medium of specified telecommunications facilities used by a specified telecommunications service provider (limited to cases in which the information recorded in the recording medium is transmitted to unspecified persons), or a person who inputs information into a transmission device of specified telecommunications facilities (limited to cases in which the information input into the transmission device is transmitted to unspecified persons).

the term "violating information" means the information by which a person alleges that the person's rights have been violated due to dissemination of information through specified telecommunications;

the term "violating information, etc." means violating information, the allegedly violated rights, and the reason for which it is alleged that the rights have been violated;

the term "measures for preventing transmission of violating information" means measures for preventing the transmission of violating information;

the term "transmission prevention measures" means measures for preventing transmission of violating information and other measures for preventing transmission of information through specified telecommunications (including measures for preventing transmission of that information and also suspending the provision of specified telecommunications service to the sender of that information (referred to as "service suspension measures" in Article 26, paragraph (2), item (ii)));

the term "sender identification information" means the name, address, and other information that contributes to the identification of the sender who dispatches violating information, as prescribed by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications;

the term "disclosure related service provider" means a specified telecommunications service provider prescribed in Article 5, paragraph (1) and the relevant telecommunications service provider prescribed in paragraph (2) of that Article;

the term "sender identification information disclosure order" means an order under the provisions of Article 8;

the term "case of a sender identification information disclosure order" means a case that involves a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order.

the term "large-scale specified telecommunications service provider" means a specified telecommunications service provider designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (1).

If the rights of others are violated due to dissemination of information through specified telecommunications, the specified telecommunications service provider that uses specified telecommunications facilities used for specified telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as the "relevant service provider" in this paragraph) will not be liable for damages resulting from the violation, unless it is technically possible to take measures for preventing the information from being transmitted to unspecified persons and the violation falls under any of the following items; provided, however, that this does not apply if the relevant service provider is the sender of information violating the rights of others:

if the relevant service provider knew that the violation of the rights of others was due to the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications;

if the relevant service provider had knowledge of the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications, and there are adequate grounds to believe that the relevant service provider could have known of the fact that the violation of the rights of others was due to the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications.

If a specified telecommunications service provider takes measures to prevent certain information from being transmitted through specified telecommunications, the specified telecommunications service provider will not be liable for any damages incurred by the sender of the information that was prevented from transmission by the measures, so far as those measures are taken to the extent necessary for preventing transmission of that information to unspecified persons and fall under any of the following items:

if there are adequate grounds for the specified telecommunications service provider to believe that the rights of others have been violated unjustly due to the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications;

if a person alleging that the person's rights have been violated due to the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications, files a petition that the specified telecommunications service provider should take measures for preventing transmission of violating information by indicating violating information, etc., the specified telecommunications service provider indicates that violating information, etc. to the sender of the violating information pertaining to the petition and inquires the sender whether the sender consents to taking the measures for preventing transmission of violating information, and the specified telecommunications service provider does not receive a response from the sender after seven days have passed from the date the sender received the inquiry that the sender does not consent to taking the measures for preventing transmission of violating information.

Beyond what is provided for in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article, if a specified telecommunications service provider takes measures to prevent transmission of certain information through specified telecommunications (limited to information on documents and drawings disseminated during an election campaign period; hereinafter the same applies in this Article), the specified telecommunications service provider will not be liable for any damages incurred by the sender of the information that was prevented from transmission by the measures, so far as those measures are taken to the extent necessary for preventing transmission of that information to unspecified persons and fall under any of the following items:

if a candidate, etc. for public office (meaning a candidate for public office, or political parties or other political organizations that has filed a candidate application pursuant to the provisions of Article 86, paragraph (1) or (8) of the Public Offices Election Act (Act No. 100 of 1950)), a party, etc. that has filed lists of candidates for the House of Representatives (meaning political parties or other political organizations that have made a notification under the provisions of Article 86-2, paragraph (1) of that Act), or a party, etc. that have filed lists of candidates for the House of Councilors (meaning political parties or other political organizations that have made a notification under the provisions of Article 86-3, paragraph (1) of that Act; the same applies hereinafter in the next item) alleging that such candidate's or party's reputation was damaged by the information distributed through specified telecommunications, that was related to documents and drawings used for election campaigns or that was used for activities to prevent the candidate, etc. from being elected (hereinafter in this Article referred to as "specific documents and drawings") files a petition that the specified telecommunications service provider takes measures to prevent the information impinge on the reputation of the candidate, etc. (hereinafter in this Article referred to as "defamatory information") from being transmitted (hereinafter in this Article referred to as "measures for preventing transmission of defamatory information") by indicating the defamatory information, the fact that the reputation was damaged, the reason for alleging that the reputation of the candidate, etc. has been damaged, and the fact that the defamatory information is related to the specific documents and drawings (hereinafter in this Article referred to as "defamatory information, etc."), the specified telecommunications service provider indicates that defamatory information etc. to the sender of the defamatory information and inquires whether it consents to taking measures for preventing transmission of the defamatory information, and the specified telecommunications service provider does not receive any notice from the sender indicating that the sender does not consent to taking the measures for preventing transmission of defamatory information after two days have passed from the day the sender received the inquiry;

A person alleging that their rights are violated due to dissemination of information through specified telecommunications, may demand the disclosure of sender identification information to the specified telecommunications service provider that uses a specified telecommunication facility for the purpose of providing the specified telecommunications with respect to the sender identification information, relative to violating the person's rights, held by the specified telecommunications service provider; other than the specified sender identification information, (which is specified in Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications as sender identification information that relates solely to the violation-related telecommunications; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph and Article 15, paragraph (2)) if both item (i) and (ii) below are applicable, and in the case of the specified sender identification information, it is applicable if all of the items below are applicable.

if it is obvious that the rights of the person demanding the disclosure have been violated due to the dissemination of the violating information as to which the disclosure is demanded;

if the sender identification information is necessary for the person demanding the disclosure to exercise the person's rights to claim damages or if there are other legitimate grounds for the person to receive disclosure of the sender identification information;

if any of (a) through (c) below is applicable:

if it is determined that the specified telecommunications service provider does not possess any sender identification information other than the specified sender identification information pertaining to the violation of the rights;

if it is determined that any sender identification information other than the specified sender identification information pertaining to the violation of the rights possessed by the specified telecommunications service provider is the only sender identification information other than those listed below prescribed in Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications;

the name and address of the sender of the violating information as to which the disclosure is demanded;

sender identification information that can be used to identify another disclosure related service provider pertaining to the violation of the rights.

if it is determined that the person demanding the disclosure is unable to identify the sender of the violating information as to which the disclosure is demanded by the sender identification information (except for specified sender identification information) disclosed pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph.

A person alleging that their rights are violated due to dissemination of information through specified telecommunications may demand that a telecommunications service provider that uses telecommunications facilities used for the violation-related telecommunications pertaining to the specified telecommunications (excluding any specified telecommunications service provider pertaining to such specified telecommunications as prescribed in the preceding paragraph; hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as a "relevant telecommunications service provider") disclose sender identification information pertaining to the violation-related telecommunications possessed by the relevant telecommunications service provider if all of the following items are applicable:

if it is obvious that the rights of the person demanding the disclosure have been violated due to the dissemination of the violating information as to which the disclosure is demanded;

if the sender identification information is necessary for the person demanding the disclosure to exercise their right to claim damages or if there are other legitimate grounds for them to receive disclosure of the sender identification information.

The term "violation-related telecommunications" as used in the preceding two paragraphs means transmission by telecommunications of identification codes (which refers to characters, numbers, symbols, and other codes used by the specified telecommunications service provider in providing the specified telecommunications service in order to identify a certain person who may receive the provision of the specified telecommunications service and distinguish the person from other persons) and other codes relating to the specified telecommunications service conducted by the sender of violating information in order to use or terminate the use of the specified telecommunications service pertaining to the transmission of the violating information, as prescribed in Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications as those falling within the necessary scope in order to specify the sender of the violating information.

If the related disclosing service provider receives a claim as prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) of the preceding Article, the provider must hear the opinion of the sender of the violating information pertaining to the demand for disclosure on whether the sender consents to the disclosure of the sender's identification information (including grounds for the opinion if the sender is of an opinion that the demand for the disclosure should not be accommodated), except if the provider is unable to contact the sender or if there are any other special circumstances.

If the disclosure related service provider receives a sender identification information disclosure order, then without delay, the provider must so notify the sender of violating information subject to the sender identification information disclosure order, who expressed an opinion that the demand for the disclosure as prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) of the preceding Article should not be accommodated when the opinion was sought pursuant to the preceding paragraph (but limited to that relating to the sender identification information disclosure order), except if it is difficult to notify the sender.

When the disclosure related service provider receives sender identification information under the order from any other disclosure related service provider who received an order pursuant to the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (1) (limited to the portion relating to item (ii)), the related disclosing service provider as the recipient must not use the sender identification information for any purposes other than identifying sender identification information (limited to portions relating to the violating information) possessed by the provider.

The disclosure related service provider is not liable for any damages incurred by the person who demanded the disclosure prescribed in the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of the preceding Article due to provider's refusal of that demand, unless the damages were due to an intentional act or gross negligence on the part of the provider; provided, however, that this does not apply if the disclosure related service provider is the sender of the violating information pertaining to the demand for disclosure.

A person to whom the sender identification information has been disclosed as prescribed in the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) or (2) must not use the sender identification information without a good reason to commit an act that unjustly damages the reputation or would disturb the peaceful life of the sender.

Upon the filing of a petition by a person who alleges that the person's rights have been violated due to disseminating information through specified telecommunications means, the court may, by way of a ruling, order the disclosure related service provider pertaining to the violation of the right to disclose sender identification information as demanded pursuant to the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) or (2).

The court has jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order if any of the items set forth below is applicable.

if the opposite party is an individual person, when any of the following (a) through (c) is applicable:

if the opposite party's domicile or residence is in Japan;

if the opposite party's domicile and residence are not in Japan or the relevant party's domicile and residence are unknown, and the opposite party had a domicile in Japan before the petition was filed (unless the party had a domicile in a foreign country after last having a domicile in Japan.)

if the opposite party is an ambassador, minister, or any other Japanese national in a foreign country who enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of that country.

if the opposite party is a corporation or any other association or foundation, when either of the following (a) or (b) is applicable:

if the opposite party's principal office or business office is located in Japan;

if the opposite party's principal office or business office is not located in Japan and if either of the following (1) or (2) below is applicable.

if the opposite party's office or business office is located in Japan and the petition relates to the business conducted at that office or business office;

if the opposite party's office or business office is not located in Japan or the location of its office or business office is unknown, and the domicile of its representative or other person principally in charge of its business is in Japan.

beyond what is set forth in the preceding two items, if the opposite party is a person who conducts business in Japan (including any foreign company (which refers to a foreign company as prescribed in Article 2, item (ii) of the Companies Act (Act No. 86 of 2005)) which continuously conducts transactions in Japan) and if the petition relates to the opposite party's business in Japan.

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, parties may establish, by agreement, the country in which they are permitted to file a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order with the courts.

The agreement as referred to in the preceding paragraph is not valid unless it is executed by means of a written document.

If electronic or magnetic records (meaning records used in computer data processing which are created in electronic form, magnetic form, or any other form that is impossible to recognize through the human senses alone) in which the content of the agreement is recorded are used to execute the agreement as referred to in paragraph (2), the agreement is deemed to have been executed by means of a written document, and the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply.

The agreement under paragraph (2) that a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may be filed only with the courts of a foreign country, may not be invoked if those courts are unable to exercise jurisdiction by law or in fact.

Even when the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs (except when a petition is filed based on an agreement under paragraph (2) that only permits a petition to be filed with the Japanese courts), the court may dismiss the whole or part of a petition without prejudice if it finds that there are special circumstances under which the Japanese courts were to conduct a trial and reach a judicial decision in the action, it would be inequitable to either party or prevent a fair and speedy trial, in consideration of the nature of the case, the degree of burden that the opposite party would have to bear in pursuing the proceedings, the location of evidence, and other circumstances.

Whether the Japanese courts have jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the time at which a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed.

A petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court which has jurisdiction over a location specified in the respective items below, depending on the categories listed in the respective items below.

if the opposite party is an individual person: location of the opposite party's domicile (if the opposite party's domicile is not in Japan or the party's domicile is unknown: location of the party's residence; and if the party's residence is not in Japan or the party's residence is unknown: location of the party's last domicile must be used.);

if the opposite party is an ambassador, minister, or any other Japanese national in a foreign country who enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of that country, and if jurisdiction is not determined pursuant to this paragraph (limited to the portion relating to the preceding item):the location determined under the Rules of the Supreme Court;

if the opposite party is a corporation or any other association or foundation:location of the office or business office specified in (a) or (b) below (if such office or business office is not located in Japan, location of the domicile of its representative or other person principally in charge of its business).

The opposite party's principal office or business office;

If the petition relates to the business conducted at the opposite party's office or business office (other than the one specified in (a)): the relevant office or business office.

With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order as to which the Japanese courts would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding Article, if the competent court is not determined pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph or other laws and regulations, then the petition is under the jurisdiction of a district court having jurisdiction over the location prescribed in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the petition may also be filed with the court specified in the relevant item:

a district court (except for the Tokyo District Court) located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court, the Nagoya High Court, the Sendai High Court, or the Sapporo High Court:the Tokyo District Court;

a district court (except for the Osaka District Court) located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Osaka High Court, the Hiroshima High Court, the Fukuoka High Court, or the Takamatsu High Court:the Osaka District Court.

Notwithstanding the preceding three paragraphs, a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court specified by the parties by agreement. In that case, the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of the preceding Article apply mutatis mutandis.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs, with regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order filed by a person alleging the infringement of the relevant person's patent right, utility model right, layout-design exploitation right for an integrated circuit, or an author's right to a work of computer programming, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to each paragraph, the petition is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court specified in the relevant item:

a district court located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court, the Nagoya High Court, the Sendai High Court, or the Sapporo High Court:the Tokyo District Court;

a district court located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Osaka High Court, the Hiroshima High Court, the Fukuoka High Court, or the Takamatsu High Court:the Osaka District Court.

An immediate appeal to a decision rendered by the court specified in item (ii) of the preceding paragraph in the case of a sender identification information disclosure order (but limited to one relating to infringement of the rights set forth in the paragraph) is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, with regard to the case specified in item (i) below relating to a petition by a person to whom, pursuant to the order under Article 15, paragraph (1) (but limited to the portion relating to item (i) of paragraph (1)), information such as names of other related disclosing service providers was provided as the relevant information is specified in (a) of item (i), if the case specified in item (ii) below relating to the petition by the person to whom the information was provided is pending, then the former case is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court at which the latter case is pending.

case of a sender identification information disclosure order in respect of violating information pertaining to the provision where the opposite party is the other disclosure related service provider;

other cases of a sender identification information disclosure order in respect of violating information pertaining to the relevant provision.

When a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed with a court, the court must deliver to the opposite party a copy of the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order unless the petition is unlawful or unless the relevant petition is clearly groundless.

The provisions of Article 43, paragraphs (4) through (6) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act (Act No. 51 of 2011) apply mutatis mutandis to a case where a copy of the petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may not be delivered (including if expenses required for the delivery of a copy of the relevant petition are not prepaid).

Before rendering a decision on a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, the court must hear the parties' statements; provided that, this does not apply when the court renders a decision to dismiss the petition, finding that it is unlawful or clearly groundless.

The parties to a case and any third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest in the case may file a request with the court clerk to inspect or copy the case record, to issue an authenticated copy, transcript, or extract of the case record, or to issue a certificate of the particulars of the case of the sender identification information disclosure order.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply with respect to case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order that are being prepared in the form of audiotapes or videotapes (including any other matters that have been recorded by means equivalent thereto). Nevertheless, the relevant parties or a third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest may file a request with the court clerk for a reproduction of these matters.

The request for inspection, copying and reproduction of records of a case of a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs may not be filed if these actions would be detrimental to the preservation of the case record or the performance of the court duties.

A petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may be withdrawn in whole or in part before a decision on the petition becomes final and binding; provided that, after any of the following decisions is made, withdrawal of the petition is invalid without the consent of the opposite party:

a decision on the petition;

an order under the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (1) where the case of a sender identification information disclosure order pertaining to the petition is the primary matter.

In the case that a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is withdrawn, if the opposite party's consent is required for the withdrawal of the petition pursuant to the provisions of the proviso to the preceding paragraph, the court must notify the opposite party of the withdrawal of the petition; provided that, this does not apply if the petition is withdrawn orally on the date for proceedings of the case of the sender identification information disclosure order and if the opposite party appears on the required date.

If the opposite party does not state an objection within two weeks from the day on which that party receives a notice pursuant to the provisions in the main text of the preceding paragraph, the opposite party is deemed to have consented to the withdrawal of the petition under the formal notice. The same applies in the case prescribed in the proviso to the relevant paragraph if the opposite party does not state an objection within two weeks from the day on which the petition is withdrawn.

A party who is dissatisfied with a decision on a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order (except for a decision to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition is unlawful) may file an action to oppose the decision within an inalterable time frame of one month from the day on which the notice of the decision is received.

An action prescribed in the preceding paragraph is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which made the decision prescribed in the paragraph.

In a judgment on the action prescribed in paragraph (1), the court approves, modifies or withdraws the decision prescribed in the paragraph except if the action is dismissed on the ground that the action is unlawful.

A judgment that approves or modifies the order prescribed in paragraph (1) and that orders the disclosure of sender identification information has the same effect in terms of compulsory execution as a judgment that orders payment.

If an action prescribed in paragraph (1) is not filed within the time frame prescribed in that paragraph or is dismissed, the decision prescribed in that paragraph with regard to the action has the same effect as the final and binding judgment.

In applying the provisions of Article 59, paragraph (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act to the case if the court makes the decision prescribed in paragraph (1), the phrase "an immediate appeal may be filed" in Article 59, paragraph (1), item (ii) of the Act is read as "an action of opposition may be filed".

If the court at which a case of a sender identification information disclosure order on the merits is pending recognizes the necessity in order to prevent a situation which could lead to the inability to identify the sender of the violating information pertaining to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, then upon petition by the person who filed the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner" in this paragraph), the court may issue a ruling ordering the disclosure related service provider as the opposite party in the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order to take the following actions:

to provide the petitioner with information specified in (a) or (b), respectively, based on the cases in (a) or (b) below (information prescribed in (a) if the cases described in (a) are considered applicable) in writing or by electronic or magnetic means (which refers to the use of an electronic data processing system or other means of information and communications technology as specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications; the same applies in the following item);

if sender identification information possessed by the disclosure related service provider (but limited to that pertaining to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order; the same applies hereinafter in this paragraph) makes it possible to identify the name and address of any other disclosure related service providers (excluding one who is recognized as the sender of the violating information; the same applies in (b)) (the name and address are referred to in this paragraph and paragraph (3) as "information such as names of other disclosure related service providers"):information such as names of any other disclosure related service providers;

if the disclosure related service provider does not possess sender identification information that makes it possible to identify any other disclosure related service providers pertaining to the violating information and that is specified as such by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, or if that disclosure related service provider is unable to make the identification as prescribed in (a) by using the sender identification information:notification to that effect.

to provide, in writing or by electronic or magnetic means, other disclosure related service providers with sender identification information possessed by that disclosure related service provider when the disclosure related service provider receives, in writing or by electronic or magnetic means, from the petitioner to whom information such as names of other disclosure related service providers has been provided pursuant to the order under the provisions of this paragraph (hereinafter referred to as "information provision order" in this Article; limited to the portion relating to the preceding item), notice to the effect that the petitioner filed a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order in respect of the violating information against that other disclosure related service provider as the opposite party.

If either of the following items becomes applicable, the information provision order (if the person to whom information such as names of other disclosure related service providers has been provided with regard to two or more other disclosure related service providers pursuant to the information provision order falls under the category of item (ii) because the relevant person does not give a notice prescribed in paragraph (1), item (ii) to certain other disclosure related service providers, then only the portion of the information provision order pertaining to those other disclosure related service providers) is no longer effective.

when the case of a sender identification information disclosure order, which is the primary matter in respect of the information provision order, ends (or if an action prescribed in paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is instituted against a decision prescribed in that paragraph for the case of a sender identification information disclosure order, when that lawsuit ends);

when the person to whom information such as names of other disclosure related service providers has been provided pursuant to the information provision order, fails to give a notice, prescribed in paragraph (1), item (ii), to the disclosure related service provider against whom the relevant information provision order has been issued, within two months after the date of receipt of the provision.

A petition for an information provision order may be withdrawn in whole or in part even after the information provision order is given.

The disclosure related service provider against whom an information provision order has been issued, may file an immediate appeal against the information provision order.

If the court at which a case of a sender identification information disclosure order on the merits is pending, recognizes the necessity in order to prevent a situation which could lead to the inability to identify the sender of violating information pertaining to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, then upon petition by the person who filed the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, the court may issue a ruling ordering that the disclosure related service provider as the opposite party against whom the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order was filed may not delete the sender identification information (limited to that relating to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order) possessed by the disclosure related service provider until the relevant case of the sender identification information disclosure order ends (or if an action prescribed in Article 14, paragraph (1) is instituted against a decision prescribed in the paragraph for that case of a sender identification information disclosure order, until the lawsuit ends).

A petition for the order issued pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph (hereinafter referred to in this Article as a "deletion prohibitory order") may be withdrawn in whole or in part even after the deletion prohibitory order is issued.

The disclosure related service provider against whom a deletion prohibitory order has been issued may file an immediate appeal against the deletion prohibitory order.

With regard to petitions and other statements in court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order, the provisions of Part I, Chapter VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996) (excluding Article 133-2, paragraphs (5) and (6) and Article 133-3, paragraph (2)) apply mutatis mutandis. In this case, the phrase "party" in Article 133, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor (meaning an interested party intervenor prescribed in Article 21, paragraph (5) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act (Act No. 51 of 2011); the same applies in Article 133-4, paragraphs (1), (2) and (7))"; the phrase "case records, etc. (meaning case records or the records of a case pertaining to a petition for a disposition under Article 132-4, paragraph (1)" in paragraph (3) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "case of a sender identification information disclosure order (meaning a case of a sender identification information disclosure order prescribed in Article 2, item (xiii) of the Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through specified telecommunications", and the phrase "), within" in that paragraph with "), within the record of the case"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. (meaning inspection of case records, inspection of non-electronic evidence collection disposition records, or inspection of electronic or magnetic evidence collection disposition records; hereinafter the same applies in this Chapter) with regard to" in that paragraph is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" in Article 133-2, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "in the case records, etc." in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "in the case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" in that paragraph and paragraph (3) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, issuance of an authenticated copy, transcript or extract, or reproduction, of"; the phrase "written or recorded document or electronic or magnetic record" in Article 133-3, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "written document", the phrase "the document or electronic or magnetic record" with "the document", and the phrase "or electronic or magnetic record, or other similar document or electronic or magnetic record, inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" with "or other similar document, inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "person, case records, etc." in Article 133-4, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor, or a third party who has made a prima facie showing of interest, case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order"; the phrase "party" in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor", the phrase "where case records, etc. are kept" with "where case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order are kept", and the phrase "inspection of case records, etc." with "inspection or copying, issuance of an authenticated copy, transcript or extract, or reproduction"; and the phrase "party" in paragraph (7) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor".

The proviso to Article 22, paragraph (1) and the provisions of Articles 27, 40 and 42-2 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act do not apply to court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order.

Beyond what is provided for in this Act, necessary particulars in connection with court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order are prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.

that specified telecommunications service falls under any of the following;

the average, over the period specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, of the number of persons who became senders in a month by using that specified telecommunications service (excluding persons presumed to be located outside Japan; the same applies in (b)) and persons specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications as equivalent thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "average monthly number of senders" in this Article and Article 24, paragraph (2)) exceeds the number specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications according to the type of specified telecommunications service;

the average, over the period specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, of the total number of persons who became senders in a month by using that specified telecommunications service (hereinafter referred to as the "average monthly total number of senders" in this Article and Article 24, paragraph (2)) exceeds the number specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications according to the type of specified telecommunications service.

it is technically possible to take measures for preventing transmission of violating information (limited to those taken to the extent necessary for preventing the transmission of violating information to unspecified persons; the same applies hereinafter) in light of the general nature of that specified telecommunications service;

If the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications finds that the grounds for the designation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph no longer exist with regard to a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider, the Minister must, without delay, rescind the designation.

To the extent necessary for the designation under the provisions of paragraph (1) and the rescission of designation under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications may, as provided by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, have a specified telecommunications service provider report the average monthly number of senders and the average monthly total number of senders of the specified telecommunications service it provides.

If the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications finds that it is difficult to ascertain the average monthly number of senders or the average monthly total number of senders of a specified telecommunications service provided by a specified telecommunications service provider by means of the collection of reports under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the Minister may estimate that average monthly number of senders or average monthly total number of senders by a reasonable method specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and make the designation under the provisions of paragraph (1) and the rescission of designation under the provisions of paragraph (2).

A large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must notify the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications of the following matters, as provided by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, within three months from the date on which it was designated under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article.

the name or title and address and, in the case of a corporation, the name of its representative;

in the case of a foreign corporation or association or an individual who has a domicile in a foreign country, the name or title and the address in Japan of the representative in Japan or the agent in Japan;

in addition to the matters set forth in the preceding two items, the matters specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

When there is a change in the matters set forth in the items of the preceding paragraph, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must notify the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications to that effect without delay.

A large-scale specified telecommunications service provider (limited to one that has made the notification under Article 21, paragraph (1); the same applies hereinafter) must, as specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, establish and publish a method for a person who alleges that the person's rights have been violated due to dissemination of information through specified telecommunications conducted using the large-scale specified telecommunications service it provides (referred to as an "infringed party" in the following Article) to make a request to that large-scale specified telecommunications service provider, by indicating the violating information, etc., to take measures for preventing transmission of violating information.

The method under the preceding paragraph must be one that conforms to all of the following items:

it enables a request to be made by a method using an electronic data processing system;

it does not impose an excessive burden on a person who intends to make a request;

it makes clear to the person who made the request (referred to as the "person making the request" in Article 25) the date and time when the large-scale specified telecommunications service provider received the request.

When an infringed party has made a request to take measures for preventing transmission of violating information in accordance with the method under paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must, without delay, conduct the necessary investigation into whether the rights of that infringed party are being unjustly violated due to the dissemination of the violating information pertaining to that request.

In order to have those parts of the investigation under the preceding Article that require specialized knowledge and experience properly conducted, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must appoint a violating information investigation specialist (referred to as an "investigation specialist" in this Article and Article 25, paragraph (2), item (ii)) from among persons who have sufficient knowledge and experience in dealing with violations of rights arising from dissemination of information through specified telecommunications.

The number of investigation specialists of a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must be the number specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications according to the average monthly number of senders or average monthly total number of senders, and the type, of the large-scale specified telecommunications service provided by that large-scale specified telecommunications service provider, or more (in the case where that large-scale specified telecommunications service provider provides multiple large-scale specified telecommunications services, the sum of the numbers specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications according to the average monthly number of senders or average monthly total number of senders, and the type, of each large-scale specified telecommunications service).

When a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider has appointed an investigation specialist, it must, as specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, notify the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications to that effect and of the matters specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, without delay. The same applies when it has changed these.

When a request under Article 23 has been made, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must determine, based on the results of the investigation under that Article, whether to take measures for preventing transmission of violating information, and notify the person making the request of the matters specified in each of the following items for the categories set forth in those items, within the period specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications that is within 14 days from the day on which it received the request; provided, however, that this does not apply when a request of the same content has previously been made by the person making the request or when there is otherwise a justifiable reason for not giving notification.

if it has taken measures for preventing transmission of violating information in response to the request: that fact;

if it has not taken measures for preventing transmission of violating information in response to the request: that fact and the reason therefor.

Notwithstanding the main clause of the preceding paragraph, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider need only, if it falls under any of the following items, notify the person making the request of the matters specified in the relevant items of that paragraph for the categories set forth in the items of that paragraph, without delay after determining whether to take measures for preventing transmission of violating information based on the results of the investigation under Article 23. In this case, it must notify the person making the request, within the period specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications under that paragraph, of which of the following items it falls under (and, if it falls under item (iii), that fact and the content of the unavoidable reason).

if it has decided to hear the opinion of the sender of the violating information for the purpose of the investigation under Article 23;

if it has decided to have the investigation under Article 23 conducted by an investigation specialist;

if, in addition to the cases set forth in the preceding two items, there is an unavoidable reason.

With regard to the dissemination of information through specified telecommunications conducted using the large-scale specified telecommunications service it provides, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider may take transmission prevention measures only where it complies with the standards that it has itself established and published, other than in a case falling under any of the following items. In this case, those standards must have been published no later than a fixed period specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications before the day on which the transmission prevention measures are taken.

if the large-scale specified telecommunications service provider is the sender of the information for which it intends to take transmission prevention measures;

if, in a case where there is an obligation to prevent the transmission of information that unjustly violates the rights of others or any other legal obligation (excluding an obligation to make efforts) to take transmission prevention measures, it takes transmission prevention measures based on that obligation;

if it takes transmission prevention measures out of urgent necessity, and the type of information for which it takes the transmission prevention measures is not expressly indicated as a subject of transmission prevention measures in those standards because it is one that cannot ordinarily be foreseen.

In establishing the standards under the preceding paragraph, a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must endeavor to ensure that the content of those standards conforms to all of the following items:

the types of information subject to transmission prevention measures are specified as concretely as possible, according to the cause by which the large-scale specified telecommunications service provider came to know of the dissemination of that information;

if there are cases in which service suspension measures may be taken, the standards for the implementation of service suspension measures are specified as concretely as possible;

the standards are written in expressions that can be readily understood by senders and other persons concerned;

consideration is given to consistency with laws and regulations that provide for obligations to make efforts concerning the implementation of transmission prevention measures.

When a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider has taken transmission prevention measures on the ground that it falls under paragraph (1), item (iii), it must promptly amend the standards under that paragraph so that it becomes clear that the type of information for which it took those transmission prevention measures is a subject of transmission prevention measures.

A large-scale specified telecommunications service provider that has published the standards under paragraph (1) must endeavor to prepare and publish, approximately once a year, materials that organize, by type of information, those cases of information for which transmission prevention measures were taken in accordance with those standards that should serve as a reference for senders and other persons concerned.

if the large-scale specified telecommunications service provider is the sender of the information for which it took transmission prevention measures;

if it has previously taken notification or similar measures with regard to having prevented the transmission of similar information to the same sender for a similar reason, or if there is otherwise a justifiable reason for not taking notification or similar measures

A large-scale specified telecommunications service provider must, once every year, as specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, publish the following matters:

the status of receipt of requests under Article 23;

the implementation status of notification under the provisions of Article 25;

the implementation status of transmission prevention measures (excluding the matters set forth in the preceding three items);

The Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications may, to the extent necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of Article 22, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26, paragraph (1) or (3), Article 27 or the preceding Article, require a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider to make a report on its business.

When the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications finds that a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider is in violation of the provisions of Article 22, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26, paragraph (1) or (3), Article 27 or Article 28, the Minister may recommend to that large-scale specified telecommunications service provider that it take the measures necessary to rectify the violation.

If a large-scale specified telecommunications service provider that has received a recommendation under the preceding paragraph fails, without a justifiable reason, to take the measures pertaining to the recommendation, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications may order that large-scale specified telecommunications service provider to take the measures pertaining to the recommendation.

A designation under Article 20, paragraph (1), the collection of reports under the provisions of Article 29, a recommendation under paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, or an order under paragraph (2) of that Article is made by serving the document specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

The notice under Article 30 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Act No. 88 of 1993) pertaining to a designation under Article 20, paragraph (1) or an order under paragraph (2) of the preceding Article is given by serving the document under that Article. In this case, the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (3) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 31 of that Act with the terms deemed to be replaced do not apply.

The provisions of Article 100, paragraph (1), Article 101, Article 102-2, Article 103, Article 105, Article 106 and Article 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to service under the preceding Article. In this case, the term "court" in that paragraph and the term "presiding judge" in that Article are deemed to be replaced with "Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications", and the term "court execution officer" in Article 101, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "official of the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications".

The Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications may effect service by publication in the following cases:

if the domicile or residence of the person to be served or the place where service is to be effected is unknown;

if it is found that, with regard to service to be effected in a foreign country, it is impossible to follow the provisions of Article 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis with the terms replaced pursuant to the preceding Article, or that service cannot be effected even by following those provisions;

if six months have passed since a commission was issued to the competent government agency of a foreign country pursuant to the provisions of Article 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis with the terms replaced pursuant to the preceding Article, and no document proving the service has been sent.

Service by publication is carried out by taking measures to place in a state where it can be viewed by unspecified and numerous persons, by the method specified by Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the effect that the documents to be served will be delivered to the person to be served at any time, and to place in a state where it can be viewed a document stating that effect posted on the bulletin board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, or that effect displayed on the screen of a computer installed at an office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

Service by publication takes effect upon the lapse of two weeks from the day on which the measures were commenced under the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

In the case of service by publication made in respect of service to be effected in a foreign country, the period referred to in the preceding paragraph is six weeks.

If an employee of the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications has handled affairs relating to a disposition notice, etc. prescribed in Article 3, item (ix) of the Act on the Advancement of Government Administration Processes That Utilize Information and Communications Technology (Act No. 151 of 2002) that is to be given by serving a document pursuant to the provisions of Article 31, using the electronic data processing system prescribed in Article 6, paragraph (1) of that Act pursuant to Article 7, paragraph (1) of that Act, the employee must, in lieu of preparing and submitting a document stating the matters concerning service under the provisions of Article 100, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis with the terms replaced pursuant to Article 32, record those matters, using that electronic data processing system, in a file kept on a computer (including input-output devices) used by the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications.

If an order under the provisions of Article 30, paragraph (2) is violated, a person who has committed said violation is subject to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than one million yen.

In any of the following cases, a person who has committed said violation is subject to a fine of not more than five hundred thousand yen:

when a person fails to make a notification under the provisions of Article 21, or makes a false notification;

when a person fails to make a report under the provisions of Article 29, or makes a false report.

When a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other staff member of a corporation or an individual, has committed a violation of the provisions set forth in the following items with regard to the business of the corporation or the individual, not only is the offender punished but also the corporation is punished by the fine prescribed in the relevant item, and the individual by the fine prescribed in the respective Articles:

Article 35 or item (i) of the preceding Article: a fine of not more than one hundred million yen;

item (ii) of the preceding Article: the fine prescribed in that Article.

A person falling under any of the following items is subject to a civil fine of no more than three hundred thousand yen:

a person who, without justifiable grounds, fails to make a report under the provisions of Article 20, paragraph (3), or makes a false report;

a person who fails to make a notification under the provisions of Article 24, paragraph (3), or makes a false notification.