Can It Be Considered a Privacy Violation if Personal Medical Information is Disclosed Online?
In the judgment of the “After the Banquet” case, the Tokyo District Court (September 28, 1964) recognized the right to privacy as a “legal guarantee or right not to have one’s private life arbitrarily made public”. This is the first case law to recognize the right to privacy. In this judgment, the Tokyo District Court established four requirements for a violation of the right to privacy:
- It must be a fact of private life or something that could be perceived as such
- It must be something that, based on the sensibilities of the general public, the individual in question would not want to be made public
- It must be something not yet known to the general public
- The individual in question must have actually felt discomfort or anxiety due to the disclosure
.
https://monolith.law/reputation/privacy-invasion[ja]
Information about an individual’s illness is privacy-related information and is extremely sensitive. It fulfills all of the above requirements, particularly the fourth one, “The individual in question must have actually felt discomfort or anxiety due to the disclosure”. Therefore, it can be said that there is a very high possibility of legal issues arising if information about someone else’s illness is disclosed or used without the person’s consent.
In the Case of a Cancer Battle Blog
As we have introduced in another article on our site, there was a case where a woman who was anonymously running a blog documenting her battle with early-onset breast cancer was identified by the defendant’s post, revealing her name, age, and place of employment to the public. This disclosure of her battle with early-onset breast cancer was considered a violation of her privacy, and she filed a lawsuit.
https://monolith.law/reputation/scope-of-privacyinfringement[ja]
In June 2014 (Heisei 26), the Tokyo District Court stated, “The defendant’s post in this case was reckless and malicious,” and “Considering that once privacy information is leaked on the Internet, it is virtually impossible to completely delete it, the consequences of the defendant’s actions must be considered serious.” The court recognized that the right to privacy had been violated and ordered the defendant to pay a total of 1.32 million yen, including 1.2 million yen for emotional distress and 120,000 yen for attorney’s fees.
Case of Dismissal Due to HIV Infection
There have been cases where the disclosure of a person’s HIV infection without their consent has been recognized as an invasion of privacy.
A entered into an employment contract with X Corporation, which involved being dispatched to Y Corporation, a local subsidiary of X Corporation, in Thailand. Immediately after arriving in Thailand, A underwent a medical examination at a local hospital to obtain a work visa at the direction of Y Corporation. Without A’s consent, the doctor conducted an HIV antibody test and informed B, the representative director of Y Corporation, that the result was positive. B reported this to X Corporation, which ordered A to return to Japan. Upon returning, the representative director informed A of his HIV infection and dismissed him on the grounds of the infection. In response, A filed a lawsuit against X Corporation claiming invalid dismissal and confirmation of status, and against Y Corporation or B for invasion of privacy.
The Tokyo District Court stated, “Even an employer is not allowed to infringe on matters pertaining to an employee’s privacy. Similarly, if an employer obtains information pertaining to an employee’s privacy, they have a duty to keep it confidential and it is illegal to leak it to third parties without due cause.”
Information about an individual’s health condition is a matter of privacy, and in particular, information about HIV infection, which is the issue in this case, should be considered highly confidential, considering the existing social prejudice and discrimination against people with HIV. Anyone who obtains this information is not allowed to leak it to third parties without due cause, and if they do, it should be considered an invasion of the right to privacy.
Tokyo District Court, March 30, 1995 (Heisei 7) Judgment
The court ordered confirmation of status and compensation for loss of earnings, as well as payment of 3 million yen in damages to X Corporation and 3 million yen to Y Corporation and B.
Case of Non-Hiring Due to Hepatitis B
There have been cases where the unauthorized acquisition and use of Hepatitis B virus infection tests have been recognized as an invasion of privacy.
A prospective graduate, A, passed the employment examination of a financial institution and underwent a health check. At the company’s direction, A had a blood test and was tested for the Hepatitis B virus, which turned out to be positive. However, A was further subjected to a detailed examination without being informed of this result, and it was revealed that he had chronic active hepatitis. Eventually, A was not hired. A sued the financial institution, claiming that his privacy rights were violated because the virus test and detailed examination were conducted without his consent and without explanation.
The Tokyo District Court stated,
“At the time of the issue in 1997 (Heisei 9), there were social misunderstandings and prejudices about the transmission route of the Hepatitis B virus and its relationship with work capacity. Especially in job-seeking and employment opportunities, there were cases where inappropriate responses were made to infected individuals. Under such circumstances, the fact that the Hepatitis B virus is a carrier that is always present in the blood should be considered as information that one does not want to be known to others. Therefore, the right not to have this information obtained without one’s consent should be protected as a privacy right.”
Tokyo District Court, June 20, 2003 (Heisei 15) Judgment
The court acknowledged that conducting the virus test and detailed examination without explaining to A and obtaining his consent was a violation of privacy rights, and awarded A 1.5 million yen in damages.
It was shown that Hepatitis B virus infection falls under privacy, and that conducting blood tests and detailed examinations at the time of hiring is illegal unless there is a necessity, the purpose and necessity are explained to the candidate, and consent is obtained.
Case of Employment Restrictions Due to HIV Infection
A nurse working in a hospital was diagnosed as HIV positive as a result of a blood test at a university hospital. The doctors and staff at the hospital where she worked, who were informed of this by the doctor at the university hospital, shared this information with other staff members without her consent. This was considered an invasion of privacy and an illegal act. Furthermore, the hospital’s decision to restrict her work due to her HIV infection was seen as an infringement on her right to work, and a case was brought seeking damages.
The Fukuoka District Court stated,
“Given the context where prejudice and discrimination against HIV-infected individuals still existed, the information in question was of significant importance from the perspective of privacy protection among personal medical information. The parties who used this information for purposes other than intended included the plaintiff’s superiors and those in positions of responsibility at her workplace, who the plaintiff would particularly want to keep this information secret from. It can be assumed that the plaintiff felt mental distress due to the continuation of her work at the hospital in question and the work restrictions imposed during the interview due to the disclosure of this information to these individuals.”
Fukuoka District Court, August 8, 2014 (2014)
The court acknowledged the invasion of privacy and awarded 2 million yen in compensation for emotional distress.
At the time, there were only a few cases worldwide where a healthcare worker infected with HIV had infected a patient, and only one case involving a nurse. It was not recognized that there was a certain level of risk of infecting other patients, and it had already been suggested that the risk of infection could be eliminated in most medical procedures by taking appropriate preventive measures. Regarding the work restrictions, the court stated that “working based on an employment contract is not only an obligation but also a right” and “the employee’s decision to take time off must be based on their free will. It is an illegal act for an employer to interfere with this, instruct the employee to take time off, or force the employee to take time off.”
Case of an Elderly Cultural Figure with Dementia
A male film director in his 90s and his family sued a female home helper and the home care company she worked for, seeking damages for privacy invasion and defamation. The helper had written about the director’s condition and behavior, including wandering around his home, on her blog.
The home care company had dispatched the helper to the director’s home from May to June 2013. In June of the same year, the helper posted the director’s real name on her blog, describing in detail how he could not brush his teeth by himself and was wandering around his home. She mocked him, saying, “Even the once-great director, now suffering from advanced dementia, has lost all his dignity and glory.” After being dispatched only three times, the helper’s contract was terminated because the family felt they could not trust her. However, a general reader who saw the blog reported the helper to the local government where the home care company was located. The company, which had already fired the helper for not following instructions and was unaware of the blog, hastily ordered her to delete the post. A week later, the helper updated her blog, hurling more insults.
The director and his family claimed that the helper had violated their privacy and damaged their reputation by publicizing the director’s condition and home situation, which she could only have known through her job as a home helper, to an unspecified number of people for self-promotion. They also claimed that the home care company had violated its duty to prevent its employees from leaking secrets and sought damages from both the helper and the company.
The Tokyo District Court stated,
The June article, which revealed that the plaintiff was suffering from dementia, could not perform daily activities such as brushing his teeth and changing his clothes on his own, did not understand the reason for taking medication, and was wandering around his room, can be considered as disclosing facts about the plaintiff’s private life or facts that could be perceived as such, and based on the sensitivity of the general public, such matters would likely be kept secret and not wanted to be disclosed.
Tokyo District Court, September 4, 2015 (2015)
The court recognized the invasion of privacy and further stated, “The publication of the June and September articles, which disclosed the plaintiff’s privacy and lowered his social evaluation, caused the plaintiff mental distress (this is not denied even if the plaintiff is an adult ward).” The court ordered the helper to pay 1.5 million yen for defamation.
https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation-and-decline-in-social-reputation[ja]
As for the home care company, the court ruled that the company had a duty to properly supervise its employees to ensure that they do not infringe on the privacy and reputation of their clients. However, the company had not paid any attention to this point with regard to this helper and was held liable for breach of duty. The company was ordered to pay 1 million yen for the June article published during the helper’s employment and 300,000 yen for the September article published after the termination of the contract, for a total of 1.3 million yen.
https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation[ja]
Summary
Medical information is highly confidential and often leads to damages beyond mental distress, such as job application rejections or work restrictions. Therefore, the damage can be more severe, and the compensation for emotional distress tends to be high. If your medical information has been disclosed or used, please consult us immediately.
Category: Internet
