Supreme Court, First Petty Bench · April 8, 2010 · Heisei 21 (2009) (Ju) No. 1049 · Judgment: appeal dismissed

An access provider that carries the communication between a poster and a content provider for a posting on an internet bulletin board is a "specified telecommunications service provider" under Article 2(iii) of the Provider Liability Limitation Act and may be the respondent to a disclosure demand.

Case seeking disclosure of sender identification information

Facts

The plaintiffs, claiming that anonymous posts on an internet bulletin board infringed their rights, sought under Article 4(1) of the Act the names, addresses and other information of the poster from the access provider that had provided the poster's internet connection, in order to pursue a damages claim. The court below held that the access provider was a disclosure-related service provider and partly granted the claim. The provider appealed, arguing that it had no part in the transmission received by the board's unspecified readers and merely carried a one-to-one communication between the poster and the content provider, so it was not a specified telecommunications service provider under Article 2(iii).

Issue

Whether an access provider carrying the communication between a poster and a content provider for a bulletin-board posting is a "specified telecommunications service provider" under Article 2(iii).

Ruling

On the wording of Article 2, a party that uses telecommunications equipment to carry a communication forming part of a flow of information ultimately intended for reception by unspecified persons is naturally included in that term. Article 4 reflects that information distributed by specified telecommunications readily infringes rights, that harm spreads without limit, and that with anonymous postings even the identification of the wrongdoer may be impossible; it allows disclosure demands under strict requirements that respect the poster's privacy, freedom of expression and secrecy of communications, so that the wrongdoer can be identified and the victim remedied. It is common knowledge that internet postings are ordinarily made through access providers, that access providers usually hold the poster's name and address for billing, and that other parties often do not. If access providers were not respondents to disclosure demands, the purpose of Article 4 would be defeated. This reading plainly does not conflict with Article 3 of the Act limiting damages liability or with Article 3 of the Telecommunications Business Act prohibiting censorship. An access provider carrying the communication between a poster and a content provider for recording information ultimately intended for unspecified recipients, as with a bulletin-board posting, is therefore a specified telecommunications service provider under Article 2(iii). The appeal was dismissed. Unanimous.

Provisions

Provider Liability Limitation Act (before the 2021 amendment), Art. 2(i), 2(ii), 2(iii), 3, 4(1); Telecommunications Business Act, Art. 3