Could Spreading False Information Be a Crime? Explaining Situations Where You Should Consult a Lawyer

With the proliferation of social media and internet forums, we have entered an era where individuals can easily disseminate information freely. However, there are cases where false information is intentionally spread, which can lead to explosive dissemination during disasters and become a social issue.

Spreading false information on social media and internet forums is not just a harmless prank; it can lead to criminal charges.

In this article, we will introduce actual cases where individuals were held accountable for disseminating false information on platforms like social media, and we will provide a detailed explanation of the strategies for dealing with such incidents. Additionally, we will explain why consulting with a lawyer is necessary, and how the approach may vary depending on the situation of the damage.

Spreading False Information Could Lead to Criminal Charges

While there is no law that directly regulates the dissemination of false information, depending on the content and the consequences, one could be charged with crimes such as ‘Credit Defamation’, ‘Fraudulent Interference with Business’, or ‘Defamation of Character’.

Below, we will explain specific cases where one could be held criminally responsible.

No Law Specifically Regulates the Act of Spreading False Information

While there is no law that specifically punishes the act of disseminating false information, the negative impact of the spread of misinformation on individuals and corporations has become a significant concern in recent years. Consequently, discussions regarding legislative measures are underway within the relevant ministries and agencies. False information can have detrimental effects on society, especially during elections, disasters, or infectious disease outbreaks, leading to the degradation of personal and corporate reputations as well as economic value.

When Defamation of Credit and Obstruction of Business by Deception Apply

If the spread of false information leads to the damage of another person’s economic reputation, one may be charged under Article 233 of the Japanese Penal Code for the crime of ‘Credit Defamation’ or ‘Obstruction of Business by Deception’.

Article 233 of the Penal Code (Credit Defamation and Obstruction of Business)

Whoever spreads false rumors or uses deception to damage a person’s credit or obstruct their business shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of not more than five hundred thousand yen.

e-Gov Law Search｜”Article 233 of the Penal Code (Credit Defamation and Obstruction of Business)[ja]“

【Credit Defamation】
Credit defamation is a crime where one intentionally spreads false information to damage another’s credit. The ‘credit’ in credit defamation includes not only economic credit but also the reputation of goods or services.

Furthermore, credit defamation requires both ‘falsehood or deception’ and ‘intent’. While statements based on true information or innocent misunderstandings do not constitute credit defamation, depending on the circumstances, they may fall under other crimes such as slander, so caution is necessary.

Here are two examples related to credit defamation:

The first case involved a woman who was charged with credit defamation for posting false negative reviews about a health supplement on an online shopping site. Although the woman was not prosecuted, the company executive who requested the false reviews was found guilty and fined 200,000 yen.

The second case involved an incident where a customer added a foreign object to a juice bought from a convenience store and falsely reported it. This case recognized that the social trust in the quality of the product is also subject to credit defamation.

【Obstruction of Business by Deception】
Obstruction of business by deception is a crime that occurs when someone uses deception to obstruct another’s business. The establishment of this crime requires three elements: ‘deception’, ‘business’, and ‘obstruction’.

‘Deception’ refers to acts of misleading or exploiting misunderstandings, including not only direct deception but also tampering with machinery or products.

‘Business’ means continuous commercial or administrative activities, including not only profit-oriented businesses but also volunteer and club activities.

‘Obstruction’ includes not only the actual hindrance of business operations but also the emergence of a state where obstruction is possible.

These elements are interpreted broadly, extending beyond their everyday meanings, making the definition of acts that constitute obstruction of business by deception quite extensive. Therefore, unexpected actions may also be charged as a crime.

Main examples of obstruction of business by deception include:

• Placing fictitious delivery orders to a restaurant, forcing them to make unnecessary deliveries
• Repeatedly making malicious silent calls to a ramen shop as a form of harassment
• Intentionally contaminating food for sale with needles or other harmful objects
• A fast-food restaurant employee sharing videos of improper conduct ignoring hygiene management on video-sharing websites
• Altering an electricity meter to fraudulently reduce power usage

Both credit defamation and obstruction of business by deception are not complaint-required crimes (crimes that require a victim’s complaint to prosecute). However, the likelihood of criminal prosecution by the police is low, so in practice, a victim’s complaint is desired.

When Defamation Applies

Publishing inaccurate information about someone or spreading baseless rumors with the intent to harass may constitute the crime of defamation under Article 230, Paragraph 1 of the Japanese Penal Code. This crime of defamation is often an issue on the internet and social media platforms.

Defamation is an act that lowers someone’s social standing in a public setting by indicating specific facts, regardless of whether those facts are true or not. For example, statements or posts such as “Mr. X has embezzled company funds,” “Ms. Y has served time in prison,” or “Mr. Z is having an affair” could be considered defamatory.

While “defamation” means to damage honor, it is interpreted here as “damaging social credibility,” and mere feelings of discomfort or offense do not constitute the crime of defamation.

Note 1: To indicate in a summarized form

Article 230, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code (Defamation)

Any person who publicly indicates facts and damages the honor of another person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of not more than five hundred thousand yen, regardless of the truth or falsity of the facts.

e-Gov Law Search｜”Article 230 of the Penal Code (Defamation)[ja]“

[Requirements for Establishing Defamation]
To sue for defamation, the following three requirements must all be met:

• Publicity
• Indication of Facts
• Defamatory Nature

The first requirement, “publicity,” refers to a state where an unspecified large number of people can recognize the act, such as posts on the internet or social media, or reports in the media. Even statements to a small number of people may be considered public if there is a potential for them to reach an unspecified large number of people.

The second requirement, “indication of facts,” refers to cases where specific facts are indicated, and it does not matter whether the content is true or not. If there is no indication of facts and it is merely an insult, the crime of insult may be applicable instead.

The third requirement, “defamatory nature,” refers to content that lowers social evaluation, such as slander or spreading a bad reputation.

Furthermore, for defamation to be established, it is necessary to identify the individual. Even if there is no real name, if a third party can easily identify the individual, the possibility of identification (the ability for others to understand who the post is referring to) is recognized.

However, even if the requirements for defamation are met, the perpetrator will not be held criminally responsible if there is a justifiable reason that negates the illegality (special circumstances that would normally make an illegal act not illegal).

For example, in the food industry, cases where false representations of origin are discovered attract the attention of society as a whole due to important issues concerning consumer health and trust. The dissemination of such high-public-interest cases to the public is generally considered an act contributing to the public good.

If the dissemination of such information is based on reliable evidence, it is less likely to be considered defamation.

The crime of defamation is a complaint-based offense. A complaint is necessary if the victim wishes to pursue criminal charges against the offender. It is important to note that the statute of limitations for public prosecution of defamation is three years from the end of the criminal act, and there is also a six-month deadline for filing a complaint, necessitating a prompt response.

Cases Where Spreading False Information Led to Criminal Charges

Careless posts and the spread of false information can lead to unexpected problems. There are numerous instances where the dissemination of false information has affected stock prices, or retweets have further propagated lies. Here, we introduce specific cases where individuals were actually held criminally responsible.

Poster Arrested for Defamation After Spreading False Rumors

In May of Reiwa 1 (2019), false rumors about five members of an idol group based in Niigata spread on social media. The poster shared content suggesting that the members were using illegal drugs, significantly damaging their reputations. This case was treated as a deliberate attempt to tarnish the social standing of the members, and the poster was arrested on charges of defamation in July of Reiwa 2 (2020).

The societal perception of slander and defamation on social media underwent a significant shift following the tragic suicide of a female professional wrestler in May of Reiwa 2 (2020), which was linked to malicious online posts. Since this incident, the enforcement against online slander and defamation has become more stringent.

The Spread of Corporate Misinformation and Its Impact on Stock Prices

The spread of misinformation about a company can lead to serious reputational damage and potentially have a significant impact on stock prices. Factors such as a loss of customer trust resulting in decreased sales, the spread of investor uncertainty towards the company, and a decline in brand image can all contribute to a drop in stock value.

The issue of falling stock prices is not only a matter of short-term losses but can also lead to long-term damage to corporate value. This can have a ripple effect on the entire operation of a company, including decreased employee motivation and difficulties in securing talent.

Examples include the reluctance to buy agricultural products from Fukushima Prefecture following the Great East Japan Earthquake (2011), stock price declines related to company names during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the decrease in company credibility due to posts by former employees that contradicted the facts. Even individual posts can lead to reputational damage and potentially result in claims for damages.

An example of an individual post causing significant reputational damage is the “Saga Bank False Email Incident” of 2003. On Christmas of that year, a chain email spread rumors that Saga Bank was about to collapse, leading to a bank run that involved 45 to 50 billion yen.

The rumor began with an email sent by a woman to a friend, suggesting that “Saga Bank might go bankrupt…” As a result, people flocked to various branches to withdraw their deposits, prompting Saga Bank to hold a press conference to deny the rumors, and the Fukuoka Finance Bureau of the Ministry of Finance issued an emergency statement to resolve the situation. The woman who spread the rumor was sent papers for indictment on charges of credit defamation but was not prosecuted.

Such cases demonstrate that even personal posts can cause significant social reputational damage and pose risks that significantly affect economic activities.

Spreading False Information through Retweets

Reposting (formerly known as retweeting) is an act of endorsing someone else’s content. However, if the content constitutes defamation, the act of reposting can be considered defamatory, even if the person reposting is not the original author.

Note that “repost” is a term related to the functionality of X (formerly Twitter), but similar features exist on other social media platforms. While the specifics may vary, the “Share” function on Facebook and “Repost” on Instagram operate under the same principle.

In September 2019 (Reiwa 1), there was a case where a journalist was sued for retweeting a post that defamed the former governor of Osaka Prefecture, and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The journalist argued that the retweet was merely intended to share information, but ultimately, the Osaka High Court concluded that retweeting without any comment can be understood as an endorsement of the content. The court upheld the original decision of the Osaka District Court and dismissed the journalist’s appeal, sounding an alarm for social media users (Osaka High Court June 23, Reiwa 2 (2020) Decision[ja]).

While this was a civil case, the same interpretation could potentially apply in criminal cases. Therefore, it is crucial to exercise caution when spreading information from third parties, especially false information. Accounts with a large number of followers have significant influence and are expected to act with greater care. Social media users must verify the truthfulness of information and refrain from spreading it carelessly.

Strategies for Responding to the Spread of False Information

When false information about you or your company is disseminated online, there is a risk of damage to personal reputation or corporate credibility. In such situations, a swift and appropriate response is necessary.

Here, we will explain concrete measures to take when you are a victim of misinformation, divided into the following three steps.

1. Attempt to remove the post to prevent the spread of the misinformation
2. Request disclosure of the poster’s identity and then pursue a claim for damages
3. File a complaint or accusation with the police and seek their assistance

Below, we will discuss each of these in more detail.

Attempting to Remove Posts to Prevent the Spread of False Information

In the face of defamation spreading through social media and internet forums, it is critical to attempt the removal of posts and prevent further dissemination. Requests for deletion can sometimes be made directly to the operating company or site administrator, or through a ‘contact form’ or ‘report button’.

However, there are instances where deletion requests are not granted because the infringement of rights cannot be specifically explained from a legal perspective. In such cases, enlisting a lawyer to initiate ‘provisional disposition for deletion’ legal proceedings can facilitate a smooth and effortless request process.

Nonetheless, when information has been extensively reposted across a wide range, complete removal becomes challenging. In such situations, if the entity involved is a company, it may consider strategies such as utilizing press releases to counteract the misinformation. Coordinating with the legal department and consulting with a lawyer to choose the appropriate method according to the situation is crucial.

Pursuing Damages After Identifying Posters Through Disclosure Requests

A disclosure request is a demand for a provider to reveal information that can help identify the sender of a message. After identifying the poster through this request, you can claim damages. These procedures can be complex, so we recommend consulting a lawyer.

To legally hold accountable those who spread false information, it is essential first to identify them. To identify a poster, a two-step disclosure request is necessary.

First, you must request the disclosure of the IP address from site operators such as “LINE” or “X,” and then request the subscriber information from the access provider (such as au, NTT DOCOMO, SoftBank, etc.).

The general flow of a disclosure request is as follows:

▼Steps for Disclosure Request

1. Initially, you ask the site operators (like “LINE” or “X”) for the disclosure of the poster’s IP address and timestamp. However, site operators typically do not provide this information unless there is a formal disclosure order from the court. Therefore, you must file a “provisional disposition order for disclosure of sender information” with the court.
2. Once the IP address is disclosed, you identify the access provider (such as au, NTT DOCOMO, SoftBank, etc.) using the IP address. Then, you request the disclosure of the poster’s subscriber information (name and address) from the access provider. At this stage, information is generally not provided without a formal court order, necessitating the filing of a “lawsuit for disclosure of sender information.”

As of October 1, 2022 (Reiwa 4), the amended Japanese Provider Liability Limitation Law has enabled integrated review of disclosure orders to site administrators and providers, allowing for swift information disclosure.

The newly established “order for disclosure of sender information” allows for earlier preservation of information and reduces procedural burdens compared to traditional methods. However, if there is an objection, it is necessary to revert to the conventional two-step disclosure procedure, so caution is required.

If you can identify the sender through a disclosure request, you can file a civil lawsuit and claim damages. Costs vary depending on the case, but generally, the fee for a disclosure request is in the hundreds of thousands of yen, and if claiming damages, the cost may also be around one million yen. Please consult a lawyer for details on costs.

When making a disclosure request, careful consideration is required to determine whether the targeted post actually constitutes defamation. At the same time, as time passes, the records necessary for identification may be deleted (providers typically retain records for 3 to 6 months), necessitating a prompt response. We recommend consulting a lawyer as early as possible to choose the best course of action.

If you would like to learn more about disclosure requests for sender information, please refer to the article below.

Related Article: What is a Disclosure Request for Sender Information? A Lawyer Explains the New Procedures and Flow Following the Amendment[ja]

Filing a Complaint or Accusation with the Police for Assistance

To consult with the police regarding defamation, the incident must constitute a crime under the Japanese Penal Code. While the police may initiate an investigation upon accepting a complaint, in many cases, an investigation is not conducted based solely on the complaint, making it necessary to submit an accusation.

By submitting an accusation, the police are obligated to proceed with the investigation, ensuring that you receive a definite response. Furthermore, if the poster has been identified through a civil procedure request for disclosure of sender information, you must decide whether to file an accusation within six months from the time you become aware of the poster’s identity.

When to Consult a Lawyer About False Information Being Spread

When false information is disseminated on the internet, it can significantly damage an individual’s reputation or a company’s credibility. While victims can sometimes handle the situation themselves, there are circumstances where professional advice is essential.

Here, we will explain specific situations where consulting a lawyer is advisable if you have been affected by false information. We will detail scenarios where a lawyer’s expertise becomes the key to resolving issues, such as when a request for deletion is denied, when it is difficult to explain rights infringement, or when you are at an impasse with legal proceedings or police responses.

When Your Request for Deletion Goes Unanswered

There are instances where your personal attempts to request the deletion of false information on the internet go unanswered. In such situations, consulting with an attorney can be an effective option.

The greatest advantage of entrusting a lawyer with your deletion request is the ability to respond swiftly. Without specialized knowledge, drafting a deletion request and navigating the process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive. However, a lawyer with expertise in the IT field can act quickly.

In the case of requesting the deletion of online articles, unexpected tasks such as negotiating with site administrators, sending additional documents, and communicating with site operators or internet service providers may be required.

By entrusting these complex procedures to a lawyer, they can handle these tasks on your behalf, allowing for the smooth progression of the deletion request without being constrained by your time limitations.

Unable to Legally Explain Rights Infringement

When requesting the removal of posted content or the disclosure of sender information, it is necessary to clearly assert which specific rights have been infringed. However, proving rights infringement is a complex task that requires specialized knowledge.

Issues may involve rights such as the right to reputation, privacy rights, copyright, and portrait rights, and accurately grasping and explaining the scope and conditions of each right can be challenging.

In situations that demand such specialized legal knowledge and experience, it is natural to feel uncertain about handling it alone, and in such cases, consulting with an attorney is an effective option. An attorney can analyze the situation from a legal perspective and make appropriate claims of rights infringement.

Lacking Knowledge to Request Disclosure in Court

When requesting disclosure of sender information in court, it is advisable to seek the assistance of an attorney. This procedure requires legal expertise, making it challenging for individuals to proceed on their own.

By appointing a lawyer, you increase the likelihood of proceeding efficiently and appropriately. For instance, you must clearly explain the rights that the posted content infringes upon, such as the right to reputation, privacy, copyright, and likeness. Handling these specialized concepts appropriately necessitates the advice of legal experts.

With the support of a lawyer, you can approach the resolution of issues involving requests for disclosure of sender information and deletion requests smoothly and effectively.

When the Police Did Not Respond

Filing a criminal complaint comes with the expectation of prompt investigation and a duty to report, which should alleviate concerns and dissatisfaction about the police not taking action. However, the reality is that complaints are often difficult to get accepted.

To have a complaint accepted, it is necessary to address each of the reasons the police may give for not being able to accept it. Consulting with an attorney who has a track record in criminal complaints and victim support can be effective in this regard. Attorneys prepare complaints that are more likely to be accepted, gather evidence, and use their expertise to assist with the criminal complaint process.

If the police still do not act, an attorney can accompany the client to the police station to strongly advocate for the acceptance of the complaint in accordance with the law. They can also support the victim through a wide range of measures, including filing a direct complaint with the prosecutor’s office.

Summary: Consult a Lawyer if False Information is Spread About You

When false information is disseminated, it can damage the victim’s financial interests, credibility, or reputation. In such situations, it is crucial to act quickly to prevent further spread by removing the post as soon as possible.

Next, it is necessary to identify the source. A disclosure request is made to identify the poster, followed by a claim for damages. These are legal proceedings in court, and the assistance of a lawyer is indispensable. Filing a complaint or a criminal accusation with the police is also an important step. By involving the police, you can expect a more reliable response.

By entrusting these procedures to a lawyer, you can reduce the risks associated with rejected removal requests or difficulties in explaining rights infringements. Moreover, lawyers can facilitate smooth proceedings in court disclosure requests and criminal accusations with the police.

If false information is spread about you, we recommend consulting a lawyer first to consider the most appropriate response. With a legal perspective, you can mitigate the damage and swiftly resolve the issue.

Guidance on Measures by Our Firm

Monolith Law Office is a law firm with extensive experience in both IT, particularly the internet, and legal matters. In recent years, overlooking information related to reputational damage and defamation spread online can lead to serious harm. Our firm provides solutions for managing reputational risks and handling online crises. Details are provided in the article below.

Areas of practice at Monolith Law Office: Reputational Risk Management for Listed Companies and Others[ja]