Labor & Employment Law

Online Defamation as Customer Harassment in Japan: Protecting Your Business and Employees

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read
Slide summary: Online Kasuhara—defamation claims, disclosure process, employer duty of care, platform takedowns
TL;DR: Online defamation is the newest frontier of customer harassment (Kasuhara) in Japan. Victims and employers can sue, request takedowns, and seek sender disclosure, but the process is slow, costly, and emotionally taxing. Proactive monitoring, clear policies, and staff support are now core compliance duties.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction: Kasuhara Moves Online
  2. How Online Actions Constitute Kasuhara
  3. Legal Issues and Response Avenues
  4. Practical Countermeasures for Businesses
  5. The Role and Responsibility of Platforms
  6. Conclusion: A Digital Frontline in Kasuhara Defense

Introduction: Kasuhara Moves Online

Customer harassment ("Kasuhara") in Japan, traditionally associated with face-to-face or phone interactions involving unreasonable demands or abuse, is increasingly migrating to the digital realm. Online platforms, from social media networks and review sites to anonymous forums, provide new avenues for disgruntled customers or third parties to target businesses and, significantly, their individual employees. This online manifestation of Kasuhara – involving defamation, invasion of privacy, doxing, or persistent online abuse related to an employee's work – presents unique and complex challenges for companies operating in Japan.

The anonymity afforded by the internet, the speed at which information (and misinformation) can spread, and the complexities of dealing with platform operators (often based overseas) create significant hurdles for both the targeted employees and their employers. While the legal framework in Japan offers remedies against online defamation and harassment, applying these in the context of Kasuhara requires a specific understanding of the legal issues, procedural difficulties, and the responsibilities employers bear towards their staff. This article delves into the legal problems posed by online Kasuhara and explores practical countermeasures businesses can take.

How Online Actions Constitute Kasuhara

The core definition of Kasuhara – behavior involving unreasonable demands or socially unacceptable means/manners that harm an employee's working environment – readily applies to online conduct. Examples where online activity crosses the line from legitimate criticism or feedback into Kasuhara include:

  • Targeted Online Abuse: Posting defamatory comments, insults, or threats directed at specific employees (identifying them by name, position, or description) on social media, forums, or review sites in relation to their work performance or a customer service interaction.
  • Doxing and Privacy Invasion: Publishing an employee's private information online (e.g., personal contact details, home address, photos unrelated to work) with malicious intent, often stemming from a customer dispute.
  • Organized Negative Campaigns: Coordinating efforts to flood review sites or social media with negative, often false or exaggerated, comments about a business or specific employees as retaliation for perceived poor service or denied unreasonable demands.
  • Spreading False Rumors: Disseminating damaging misinformation online about an employee's competence, conduct, or personal life, specifically linked to their professional role, with the intent to harm their reputation or employment.
  • Persistent Online Stalking/Harassment: Repeatedly contacting or targeting an employee online across multiple platforms with abusive or unwanted messages related to a customer service issue.

The MHLW's 2022 Kasuhara countermeasures manual explicitly acknowledges online actions, citing "SNS posts (publishing employee names)" and "acts damaging company/employee credibility" as potential forms of Kasuhara. The key is that the online action is linked to the employee's work and employs means or has an impact that is socially unacceptable and detrimental to their working environment or personal safety.

When online Kasuhara occurs, legal recourse exists, but pursuing it involves distinct challenges for both the employee and the employer.

1. Recourse for the Targeted Employee

An employee subjected to online defamation, privacy invasion, or severe harassment related to their work has potential claims under Japanese tort law (Civil Code Art. 709) against the perpetrator. Common claims include:

  • Defamation (名誉毀損 - Meiyo Kison): Publishing false statements that lower the employee's social reputation.
  • Insult (侮辱 - Bujoku): Publishing abusive language that insults the employee publicly, even without specific factual allegations (Criminal Code provisions on insult can also be relevant, but civil claims are based on tort).
  • Invasion of Privacy (プライバシー侵害 - Puraibashī Shingai): Disclosing private information without consent that the person would reasonably want kept private.
  • Infringement of Portrait Rights (肖像権侵害 - Shōzōken Shingai): Unauthorized publication of an employee's image, especially if used maliciously.

However, the employee faces significant practical hurdles:

  • Identifying the Perpetrator: Online attacks are often anonymous. Identifying the poster requires legal action under the Act on Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders (特定電気通信役務提供者の損害賠償責任の制限及び発信者情報の開示に関する法律), often referred to as the Provider Liability Limitation Act, but recently amended (effective end of 2022) and sometimes discussed under the umbrella of the Information Distribution Platform Countermeasures Act (情報流通プラットフォーム対処法).
    • Disclosure Request Process (発信者情報開示請求 - hasshinsha jōhō kaiji seikyū): This usually involves a two-step court process: first, obtaining an order against the content platform (e.g., social media site, forum operator - the "Content Provider" or CP) to disclose the IP address and timestamp associated with the post; second, using that information to obtain another court order against the relevant internet access provider (e.g., mobile carrier, ISP - the "Access Provider" or AP) to disclose the subscriber's name and address. This process can be time-consuming (log retention periods are a major issue) and expensive, requiring legal representation. A non-litigation disclosure procedure was also introduced by the amendments, but its effectiveness is still being evaluated.
  • Content Removal (削除請求 - sakujo seikyū): The employee can request the platform (CP) remove the harmful content based on infringement of their rights (defamation, privacy, etc.). However, platforms, especially those based overseas, may be slow or unresponsive to voluntary requests. Often, a provisional court injunction (仮処分 - karishobun) ordering removal is necessary, again requiring legal action and expense. The recent legal amendments aim to impose stricter obligations on large platform operators regarding the speed and transparency of their takedown procedures for clearly illegal content, but the practical impact is still unfolding.
  • Personal Burden: Pursuing legal action requires the employee to engage personally in potentially stressful litigation, possibly revealing their identity further to the harasser during the process (despite provisions for protecting plaintiff addresses in certain cases - Civil Procedure Act Art. 133 ff.). The financial and emotional cost can be prohibitive for many individuals.

2. Recourse and Obligations for the Employer

While the employee is the direct target, the employer is also significantly impacted and has both obligations and potential legal avenues:

  • Employer's Duty of Care (Anzen Hairyogimu): As discussed previously, employers have a duty under the Labor Contract Act to provide a safe working environment. If an employer is aware (or reasonably should be aware) that an employee is facing severe online harassment linked to their work (e.g., stemming from a customer interaction) and this is impacting their health, safety, or ability to work, the employer has a duty to take reasonable steps. Failure to do so could lead to liability towards the employee. Reasonable steps might include investigating the matter, offering support (time off, counseling), assisting with platform takedown requests, implementing security measures if physical threats arise, or potentially supporting the employee's legal action.
  • Employer's Own Legal Claims: The company itself might have grounds to act against the online posts:
    • Damage to Business Reputation/Credibility (信用毀損 - Shin'yō Kison): If the online posts contain false information that harms the company's public image or trustworthiness.
    • Interference with Business (業務妨害 - Gyōmu Bōgai): If the online campaign involves false information intended to disrupt operations (e.g., fake safety warnings, calls for boycotts based on lies).
    • Defamation of the Company: If the posts, even when targeting an employee, are framed in a way that lowers the company's overall reputation.
  • Challenges in Acting for the Employee: Can an employer directly sue or seek takedowns based solely on the infringement of the employee's personal rights (like privacy or personal defamation)? This is legally complex in Japan. As legal expert Yoichiro Itakura points out, if the company takes extensive actions like evidence gathering for the employee's claim, providing detailed legal advice on options, or mediating with the harasser, it risks violating Article 72 of the Attorney Act (弁護士法 - Bengoshihō), which prohibits non-lawyers from handling legal affairs for remuneration (the broad definition of "legal affairs" and the potential link to the employment relationship as indirect remuneration create risk). Itakura suggests legislative reform might be needed to explicitly allow employers to pursue such claims on behalf of employees in Kasuhara situations, similar to how publishers can act for authors under Copyright Law Art. 118. Currently, direct employer action is often limited to claims based on harm to the company itself or supporting the employee's own legal efforts.

Practical Countermeasures for Businesses

Given the legal complexities and the potential harm, businesses need proactive strategies to manage online Kasuhara:

  1. Online Monitoring: Implement regular monitoring of social media, review sites, and relevant online forums for mentions of the company name, brand, key executives, and potentially frontline service locations or employee identifiers (if commonly used). This can involve internal resources or specialized monitoring services.
  2. Clear Internal Policy & Reporting:
    • Include specific guidance on online harassment within the company's overall Kasuhara policy.
    • Establish clear internal channels for employees to report online abuse or threats they experience related to work. Ensure confidentiality and non-retaliation.
  3. Employee Support Protocol:
    • Define steps for supporting affected employees: offering immediate counseling or mental health resources, providing IT security advice if doxing occurs, granting time off if needed, and discussing options for platform reporting or legal action.
    • Consider creating a dedicated internal team or point person for coordinating responses to online harassment incidents.
  4. Platform Takedown Procedures:
    • Familiarize the company (legal/PR departments) with the content removal request processes of major platforms relevant to the business (e.g., X/Twitter, Facebook/Instagram, Google Maps/Reviews, local review sites like Tabelog).
    • Prepare templates or documentation needed for common takedown requests (e.g., proving defamation or privacy invasion). Understand the requirements of the Information Distribution Platform Countermeasures Act for engaging with larger platforms.
  5. Legal Preparedness:
    • Have access to legal counsel experienced in Japanese internet law, specifically defamation, privacy, and the procedures for sender identification requests and injunctions.
    • Understand the potential costs and timelines involved in legal action and make informed decisions about when to pursue it.
  6. Employee Anonymization Review:
    • Assess where employees are identified publicly in customer interactions.
    • Consider policies allowing or requiring the use of aliases, staff IDs, or first-name-only on name badges in physical locations or online profiles, where appropriate and operationally feasible, to reduce the risk of targeted online identification (following examples from some convenience store chains).
  7. External Communication Strategy:
    • Develop a strategy for when and how to respond publicly to online criticism or attacks, balancing the need to correct misinformation with the risk of amplifying negative content. Silence is not always the best option, but neither is engaging defensively with every online comment.

The Role and Responsibility of Platforms

The platforms hosting the content (CPs) play a crucial role. The recent amendments strengthening the old Provider Liability Limitation Act (now effectively the Information Distribution Platform Countermeasures Act) aim to increase platform accountability, particularly for large operators. They are now expected to:

  • Establish clear and accessible procedures for rights infringement claims (takedown requests).
  • Respond to takedown requests within a certain timeframe (especially for specific types of harmful content).
  • Be more transparent about their content moderation policies and actions.
  • Cooperate with court-ordered disclosure requests for sender identification information.

However, challenges remain, particularly with platforms headquartered overseas that may prioritize compliance with their home jurisdiction's laws or lack sufficient Japanese-language support. The ongoing debate about the extent of platform liability for user-generated content continues, as highlighted by recent lawsuits against platforms like Google regarding harmful reviews.

Conclusion: A Digital Frontline in Kasuhara Defense

Online defamation and harassment represent a rapidly evolving and highly challenging dimension of customer harassment in Japan. The potential for anonymity, rapid dissemination, and severe psychological impact on employees requires businesses to treat this threat seriously. While Japanese law provides avenues for recourse through tort claims, disclosure requests, and takedown procedures, these processes can be complex, costly, and slow.

Therefore, a proactive and multi-faceted corporate strategy is paramount. This involves diligent online monitoring, establishing clear internal policies and support systems for affected employees, understanding the intricacies of engaging with online platforms and pursuing legal options like disclosure requests, and considering practical measures like reviewing employee identification practices. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, businesses must remain vigilant and adaptive, treating the protection of their employees from online Kasuhara as an integral part of their overall risk management and Duty of Care obligations in Japan.