Labor & Employment Law

Understanding 'Customer Harassment' (Kasuhara) in Japan: Legal Risks and Employer Obligations

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read
Slide summary: Kasuhara in Japan—definition, employer duty of care, court decisions, and prevention measures
TL;DR: “Customer harassment” (Kasuhara) is rising in Japan and can trigger employer liability under the Duty of Care. While no nationwide statute yet mandates counter-measures, MHLW guidelines, local ordinances, and court cases make proactive policies, training, and support systems essential for risk management.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction: A Growing Workplace Challenge
  2. Defining Kasuhara: Beyond the Legitimate Complaint
  3. The Scale and Impact of the Problem
  4. The Legal Landscape and Employer Obligations
  5. Insights from Court Decisions
  6. Practical Countermeasures for Businesses
  7. Conclusion: Proactive Management is Essential

Introduction: A Growing Workplace Challenge

While Japan is renowned for its high standards of customer service (omotenashi), businesses operating in the country are increasingly confronting a challenging phenomenon known as "customer harassment," often abbreviated as "Kasuhara" (カスタマーハラスメント). This refers to problematic behavior by customers, clients, or other third parties that goes beyond legitimate complaints and creates a hostile or harmful environment for employees.

Kasuhara is no longer just an operational nuisance; it has evolved into a significant social issue drawing attention from policymakers, industry groups, labor unions, and the media. Recent surveys indicate its prevalence, particularly in service-oriented industries, and highlight its detrimental impact on employee well-being, morale, and retention. For businesses, especially foreign companies navigating Japan's employment landscape, understanding Kasuhara is critical. It poses potential legal risks related to employer responsibilities, impacts workforce stability, and necessitates proactive management strategies.

This article explores the concept of Kasuhara in Japan, examines the current legal framework and employer obligations, discusses relevant trends and court decisions, and outlines practical measures businesses should consider to mitigate risks and protect their employees.

Defining Kasuhara: Beyond the Legitimate Complaint

Unlike "power harassment" (pawahara) or "sexual harassment" (sekuhara), which are now defined and regulated under specific national laws (the Labour Measures Comprehensive Promotion Act and the Act on Securing, Etc. of Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment, respectively), Kasuhara currently lacks a single, unified statutory definition at the national level in Japan.

However, a working definition, widely referenced in government guidelines and corporate manuals, has emerged. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), in its influential 2022 "Customer Harassment Countermeasures Corporate Manual," describes Kasuhara as encompassing claims and behaviors from customers or similar parties that meet two conditions:

  1. The content or nature of the demand lacks reasonableness when viewed against the provided product or service and social norms.
  2. The means or manner used to make the demand is socially unacceptable.

Examples of socially unacceptable means or manners include:

  • Physical violence or attacks
  • Mental attacks (threats, insults, defamation, repeated or persistent abuse)
  • Coercive actions (demanding unreasonable apologies like kneeling - dogeza, refusing to leave premises, confinement)
  • Making unreasonable or excessive demands (requesting services beyond the scope of the contract, demanding monetary compensation for minor issues without basis, seeking replacement for products damaged by the customer)
  • Invasion of privacy (doxing employees online, excessive personal inquiries)
  • Discrimination based on employee attributes

Crucially, Kasuhara is distinct from legitimate complaints or reasonable requests. Customers have the right to point out deficiencies in products or services. The line is crossed when the demand itself is fundamentally unreasonable, or when the way a demand (even a potentially reasonable one) is pursued becomes abusive, threatening, or excessively burdensome, thereby harming the employee's working environment. Discerning this boundary remains a significant practical challenge for businesses and their frontline staff.

The Scale and Impact of the Problem

Kasuhara is not an isolated phenomenon. According to a large-scale MHLW survey conducted in Fiscal Year 2023 (the "R5 Survey"):

  • About 10.8% of surveyed workers reported experiencing "serious nuisance behavior from customers, etc." within the past three years. While lower than the rate for power harassment (19.3%), it exceeded that for sexual harassment (6.3%).
  • Experiences varied significantly by industry, being highest in sectors with frequent customer interaction like "Lifestyle-related services, entertainment" (16.6%), "Wholesale/Retail" (16.0%), and "Accommodation/Food services" (16.0%). Healthcare and welfare sectors also reported high incidences of problematic interactions with patients or their families.
  • The most common types of behavior reported were persistent or repetitive verbal abuse and intimidating language.
  • The impact on employees and businesses included negative effects on normal work performance (63.4%), decreased employee motivation/engagement (61.3%), and employee leave or resignation (22.6%).

These figures underscore that Kasuhara poses a real threat to employee health and safety and can lead to significant operational disruptions and turnover costs for businesses.

While Japan does not yet have a national law specifically mandating Kasuhara prevention measures for employers (unlike power harassment, where prevention measures became mandatory for large companies in 2020 and SMEs in 2022), employers are not without legal responsibilities. Existing principles of labor law place obligations on employers to protect their workforce:

1. Duty of Care (安全配慮義務 - Anzen Hairyogimu)

  • Rooted in the Labor Contract Act (Article 5), employers have a fundamental duty to give necessary consideration for their employees to conduct their work while ensuring their life and physical safety.
  • This broad duty is widely interpreted by courts to include protecting employees from foreseeable harm in the workplace, encompassing not only physical hazards but also severe psychological distress.
  • Crucially, this duty can extend to protecting employees from harm caused by third parties, such as customers or clients, if the employer could reasonably foresee the risk and take steps to prevent or mitigate it.
  • Failure to fulfill this Duty of Care can lead to civil liability for damages (under breach of contract or tort law) if an employee suffers physical or mental harm due to Kasuhara that the employer failed to adequately address.

2. Workplace Environment Duty (職場環境配慮義務 - Shokuba Kankyō Hairyogimu)

  • Often discussed in conjunction with the Duty of Care, this concept emphasizes the employer's responsibility to maintain a working environment conducive to employee well-being and free from harassment or other factors that impede their ability to work safely and effectively.
  • Allowing severe or persistent Kasuhara to occur without intervention could be seen as a breach of this duty.

3. Power Harassment Guidelines (Reference Point)

  • Although not legally binding for Kasuhara per se, the official MHLW guidelines detailing mandatory power harassment prevention measures explicitly state that it is "desirable" for employers to implement similar measures regarding serious nuisance behavior from customers and other third parties.
  • These desirable measures include establishing consultation channels, developing response protocols, and providing necessary support and consideration for affected employees. This signals a governmental expectation that employers should proactively address Kasuhara.

4. Emerging Local Ordinances (e.g., Tokyo)

  • A significant development is the enactment of local ordinances targeting Kasuhara. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Ordinance on the Prevention of Customer Harassment (東京都カスタマー・ハラスメント防止条例), passed in October 2024, is the first of its kind in Japan.
  • The Tokyo ordinance explicitly prohibits Kasuhara (defined similarly to the MHLW manual, focusing on unreasonable demands or socially unacceptable conduct harming the work environment) by any person (Art. 4).
  • It imposes responsibilities (sekimu, often translated as duties or obligations, though without direct penalties in this ordinance) on businesses, employees, and customers/users to prevent Kasuhara (Arts. 7-9). Businesses, for example, are obligated to endeavor to create necessary systems like consultation services, employee training, and manual development.
  • While the Tokyo ordinance currently lacks direct penalties for non-compliance, its existence sets a clear standard and potentially influences civil liability assessments (actions contravening the ordinance might be viewed more negatively in court). Other municipalities are reportedly considering similar measures, indicating a trend towards explicit regulation.

Insights from Court Decisions

Japanese courts have addressed Kasuhara-related issues in various contexts, shedding light on how employer duties are interpreted:

  • Adequate Measures Can Preclude Liability: In a case involving call center employees subjected to abusive and obscene calls (NHK Service Center case, Tokyo High Ct., Nov 22, Reiwa 4 [2022]), the court denied employer liability. It found the company had implemented reasonable safety measures, such as clear protocols for escalating problematic calls, allowing disconnection, providing supervisor support, and offering counseling. This suggests that robust, documented preventative and responsive measures can shield employers from liability under the Duty of Care.
  • Inadequate Protection Can Lead to Liability: Conversely, in cases involving foreseeable risk of harm, failure to take adequate steps can result in liability. A case involving a nurse repeatedly assaulted by a delirious patient (Nippon Kokan Hospital case, Tokyo Dist. Ct., Feb 19, Heisei 25 [2013]) found the hospital liable for breaching its Duty of Care by not having adequate protocols for responding to foreseeable patient violence, even though patient behavior might not fit the typical Kasuhara mold. The principle of failing to protect employees from foreseeable third-party harm remains relevant.
  • Poor Post-Incident Response: Employer liability can also arise from mishandling a situation after Kasuhara occurs. In a case involving a public school teacher subjected to unreasonable demands from a student's family (Kofu City/Yamanashi Prefecture case, Kofu Dist. Ct., Nov 13, Heisei 30 [2018]), the court found the employer (the municipality) liable. The liability stemmed not directly from the parents' actions, but from the school principal's subsequent response, which pressured the teacher to apologize rather than protecting them, thereby constituting power harassment and causing further mental distress. This highlights the importance of supporting employees after Kasuhara incidents.
  • B-to-B Kasuhara and Employer Liability: Kasuhara isn't limited to consumer interactions. In a case involving an employee of a medical device company subjected to violence and threats by a contact person at a major client hospital (Nagano Dist. Ct. Iida Branch, Aug 30, Reiwa 4 [2022]), the court explicitly used the term "customer harassment" and found both the individual perpetrator liable in tort and the client hospital liable as the employer (under Civil Code Art. 715 for vicarious liability). This confirms that businesses can be held responsible for Kasuhara committed by their employees towards suppliers or partners.

Practical Countermeasures for Businesses

Based on MHLW guidelines, expert recommendations from the roundtable discussion in Jurist No. 1605, and emerging best practices, businesses in Japan should consider implementing a multi-layered strategy:

  1. Establish a Clear Policy & Basic Stance:
    • Develop and disseminate a company-wide policy that clearly defines Kasuhara, states the company's zero-tolerance stance, and affirms commitment to protecting employees.
    • Distinguish unacceptable behavior from legitimate customer feedback.
  2. Prepare Response Manuals and Procedures:
    • Create practical manuals outlining specific steps for employees to take when faced with different types of Kasuhara (verbal abuse, threats, excessive demands, online attacks).
    • Define escalation procedures – when and how to involve supervisors, managers, security, or potentially law enforcement. Collaboration with police departments before incidents occur can be beneficial.
    • Consider industry-specific guidelines or collaborate with industry associations to establish common standards, which can help prevent customers from targeting companies perceived as having "weaker" responses.
  3. Employee Training and Education:
    • Train all employees, especially frontline staff, on the company policy, how to identify Kasuhara, de-escalation techniques, response protocols, and reporting mechanisms.
    • Ensure employees understand they are supported by management and should not endure abusive behavior.
    • Training should also cover how to handle legitimate complaints professionally to prevent unnecessary escalation.
  4. Develop Consultation and Support Systems:
    • Establish accessible internal channels (e.g., dedicated hotline, HR contact) where employees can safely report Kasuhara incidents and seek advice without fear of reprisal.
    • Provide access to mental health support (counseling, EAPs) for employees affected by severe incidents.
  5. Information Sharing and Organizational Response:
    • Ensure mechanisms exist for information about Kasuhara incidents reported at the frontline to reach relevant management levels for analysis and potential systemic improvements.
    • Treat Kasuhara not just as an individual employee issue, but as an organizational risk requiring a coordinated response.
  6. Addressing Online Kasuhara:
    • Monitor online platforms (social media, review sites) for defamatory or harassing content targeting the company or its employees.
    • Have procedures for requesting removal of infringing content from platform operators (leveraging tools like the revised Provider Liability Limitation Act - now Information Distribution Platform Countermeasures Act - for larger platforms).
    • Consider legal action (injunctions, damages claims after identifying the poster via disclosure requests) in serious cases.
    • Protect employee privacy by reviewing policies on name tags or online identification where feasible (e.g., using aliases or staff numbers instead of full names in some contexts).

Conclusion: Proactive Management is Essential

Customer harassment is a complex and growing challenge for businesses in Japan, impacting employee safety, well-being, and operational stability. While comprehensive national legislation mandating preventative measures is still under consideration, existing legal principles, particularly the employer's Duty of Care, already impose significant responsibilities on businesses to protect their workforce from foreseeable harm, including severe harassment by customers.

The trend towards increased awareness, the development of official guidelines and corporate manuals, and the emergence of local ordinances like Tokyo's signal rising expectations for businesses to take Kasuhara seriously. Proactive implementation of clear policies, robust employee training, effective response protocols, and supportive consultation systems are no longer just best practices but essential components of risk management and responsible employment in Japan. By addressing Kasuhara systematically, companies can better protect their employees, mitigate legal liability, and contribute to a healthier environment for both workers and legitimate customers.