Featured Articles / Public Interest

New Laws to Protect Victims of Online Harms, Take Down Harmful Content

by Samuel Teo /
Woman crying while looking at her phone

Singapore has taken a major step in strengthening its legal framework for online safety. On 5 November 2025, Parliament passed the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, a landmark legislation targeting the rise of online harms. The Bill introduced new measures to strengthen online safety and protect Singaporeans from online harms, by empowering victims to seek timely relief and obtain redress. It also established a new one-stop agency, the Online Safety Commission (OSC), to administer a statutory reporting mechanism that will enable victims to seek timely remedies from specified online harms.

Specified statutory tort provisions under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) (OSRA) Act came into effect on 29 June 2026, and the OSC also commenced operations on the same day.

This article will cover the following topics:

What is the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) (OSRA) Act?

The Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act (OSRA Act) ensures that victims of online harms no longer struggle alone in navigating fragmented avenues of redress. It introduces a one-stop reporting and enforcement mechanism designed to provide prompt relief. The administration of the OSRA Act is overseen by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and the Ministry of Law. The rationale behind the changes proposed in the OSRA Bill and implemented in the OSRA Act is three-fold:

  • Our daily lives are now intertwined with access to digital media, which gives rise to serious concerns surrounding the misuse of digital media (e.g. the internet) to harass or bully individuals and distribute harmful content (e.g. intimate images).
  • In particular, Singaporeans are reporting increased exposure to online harms. The MDDI recently published the results of the Perceptions of Digitalisation Survey, which reported that more than four in five respondents in Singapore encountered harmful online content (e.g. sexual and violent content, cyberbullying and content causing racial or religious tension), and one-third experienced harmful online behaviour in the past year. 
  • The growing exposure to online harms has serious consequences on individuals and society, including deep psychological impacts on victims, as well as the stymieing of online participation and discourse. Individuals have become more uncomfortable expressing their personal views on potentially controversial topics online, for fear of being subject to online harms.

The purposes of the OSRA Act are therefore to:

  • Provide victims of online harmful activity with timely means of redress, statutory rights of action and remedies in court proceedings.
  • Improve and promote online safety.
  • Deter and prevent online harmful activity and mitigate harm caused by such activity.
  • Promote accountability as well as responsible and reasonable conduct among users and stakeholders online.

What is Defined as “Online Harmful Activity” Under the OSRA Act?

Under the OSRA Act, “online harmful activity” is defined to mean the following activities:

  • Online harassment: this refers to communicating online material that is threatening, abusive, insulting, sexual or indecent, and likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation.
  • Doxxing: this means publishing someone’s information that enables him/her to be identified, with the intention to cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation to him/her. For example, disclosing someone’s home address, passport number, or information about his/her employment or education.
  • Non‑consensual disclosure of private information: this refers to publishing someone’s private information without his/her consent, in a way that is likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation to him/her. For example, disclosing that someone suffers from a neurocognitive disease without his/her consent, when that fact would not be easily apparent to others.
  • Online stalking: this refers to engaging in online acts associated with stalking someone, that is likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation to him/her. For example, repeatedly posting on someone’s social media account page or repeatedly sending messages to someone’s friends and relatives.
  • Intimate image abuse: this means communicating online material containing, without the victim’s consent, intimate images/recordings of him/her, an offer to sell or distribute such material, advertisements of such material that is likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation to him/her.
  • Image‑based child abuse: this refers to communicating online material containing or relating to child abuse images or recordings. This includes material which depicts a child (i.e. someone below 16 years of age) as a victim of torture, cruelty, sexual abuse or engaging in sexual activity.
  • Online impersonation: this refers to online activity where one person pretends to be another (the victim) without his/her consent, to make others believe that the online activity is being done by the victim. For example, creating an account using the victim’s name and picture, and interacting with others pretending to be the victim.
  • Inauthentic material abuse: this means communicating inauthentic material of the victim that is likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation. This includes material such as photos or audio recordings which have been digitally altered. For example, posting a picture of a person engaging in animal cruelty, with the person’s face being digitally replaced with the victim’s face.
  • Publication of false material: this refers to the publishing of online material containing false statements of fact about the victim and that is likely to cause harm to him/her. 
  • Publication of statements harmful to reputation: this refers to the publishing of online material containing statements that are likely to cause harm to the victim’s reputation. For example, publishing a blog post detailing accounts of the victim’s history of bullying others, when such incidents had never happened.
  • Online instigation of disproportionate harm: this refers to communicating online material containing statements which could instigate the public to act or omit to act in response to an alleged speech or conduct of a person, and which would increase the risk of the person or someone related to the person suffering harm. For example, person A makes a comment that person B disagrees with. Person B then posts on his/her own social media page, asking others to leave negative online reviews for a food stall run by person A’s father, which impacts the father’s business. Person B would be liable for online instigation of disproportionate harm.
  • Incitement of enmity: this refers to communicating online material that incites, or is likely to incite, feelings of enmity, hatred or hostility against any group in Singapore. For example, posting content disparaging persons of a certain race or religion.
  • Incitement of violence: this means communicating online material that incites or is likely to incite others to use unlawful force or unlawful violence against any group in Singapore.
  • Any other type of online activity (i.e. any activity done using the Internet, in or from Singapore, or which is perceived by persons in Singapore) that is likely to cause harm to persons in Singapore.

For a victim to be able to seek redress under the OSRA Act, the online harmful activity must have been done in or from Singapore or has to be perceived by persons in Singapore. For example, in the case of a social media post, it would suffice if the post is made by users based in Singapore or is accessible by users based in Singapore.

What are the Key Features/Provisions of the OSRA Act?

Establishment of the Online Safety Commission (OSC)

The OSRA Act establishes the new Online Safety Commission (OSC), which is a dedicated agency to administer a statutory reporting mechanism that will enable victims to seek redress from specified online harms. 

The purpose of the OSC is to deliver speedy, practical relief to give redress to what has objectively been determined to be an online harm. The Infocomm Media Development Authority’s Online Safety Assessment Report 2024 found that presently, social media companies tend to “drag their feet” when responding to reports of harmful content. Most major platforms acted appropriately on only about half the harmful content reported and often took 5 days or more to do so. In contrast, the OSC is modelled on Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, an independent regulator that has powers to direct social media platforms to remove flagged harmful content within 24 hours or face penalties.

The OSC began its operations on 29 June 2026, and is led by the Commissioner of Online Safety appointed by the Minister for Digital Development and Information.

The process of reporting a harm before the OSC will generally track the following steps:

  • In most cases, victims must first lodge a report with the relevant online service provider. If the service provider fails to respond or provides an inadequate response within 24 hours, victims may then escalate the matter to the OSC. However, for certain urgent categories of online harm, such as intimate image abuse and child sexual abuse material, victims may approach the OSC directly for immediate relief through its website. The following points should be noted when lodging a report with the OSC:
    • When victims make reports via the OSC’s website, they will need to provide information of the online harm that they faced. Such information includes a description of what happened, as well as supporting information like URLs, screenshots, images and videos.
    • A report may be submitted by someone other than the victim, provided that he/she has the victim’s written authorisation to do so. If the victim is under 18 years of age, parents and guardians may file a report on his/her behalf. 
    • No fee is required to make a report to the OSC.
  • Upon receiving a report, the OSC will assess the report and investigate if necessary.
    • If the OSC assesses that an online harm was not committed, the OSC will dismiss the report.
    • If the OSC assesses that an online harm was committed, the OSC may issue directions to address the harm. These may include orders to remove harmful content, disable access to the harmful content, restrict the perpetrator’s account, or allow the victim to publish a response. Such directions can be issued to those who posted the harmful content, administrators of online spaces, or platforms hosting the material.
  • If parties to whom directions are issued fail to comply with the same, that constitutes a criminal offence. Individuals may be fined up to $20,000 and jailed for up to 12 months, while entities may be fined up to $500,000 for failing to comply with the OSC’s directions. A further fine of up to $2,000 and $50,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction may be imposed on individuals and entities, respectively. The OSC may also decide to impose further measures, such as access-blocking orders or app-removal orders, to halt the harmful activity.
  • There is a two-stage review mechanism for parties affected by an OSC decision:
    • First, parties may request a reconsideration of the Commissioner’s decision. Applications must be made within 14 days after the issuance of the OSC decision. The Commissioner may then decide to affirm, revoke, vary or substitute the decision. There is no fee for applying for a reconsideration.
    • Second, parties who remain dissatisfied may appeal to an Online Safety Appeal Panel (Panel). This is an independent panel appointed by the Minister for Digital Development and Information and acts independently of the OSC. The Panel is composed of 6 members, comprising experienced members from various sectors with relevant expertise, such as domain knowledge on what online service providers are able or expected to do, or legal expertise on the standards required to be adhered to. Appeals must be made within 14 days after the Commissioner’s reconsideration decision is issued. The Panel can affirm, revoke, vary, or substitute the Commissioner’s decision. For appeals, a $200 application fee is payable. 

The OSC will cover 13 categories of online harms – which mirror the different types of “online harmful activity” set out above. In its initial phase of operationalisation starting from 29 June 2026, the OSC will focus on the 5 categories of “online harmful activities” below, which are the most serious and widespread harms. The remaining categories will be progressively implemented:

  1. Online harassment (including online sexual harassment)
  2. Doxxing
  3. Online stalking
  4. Intimate image abuse
  5. Image-based child abuse

Apart from issuing directions to stop or limit the harm, the OSC also provides additional support for victims who have experienced online harms. The OSC’s website provides victims and the public with resources on online harms, including information on what to do when you experience them and how one can keep oneself safe online.

Additionally, the OSC has various community partners, including Fei Yue Community Services, Samaritans of Singapore, SHE – SG Her Empowerment, Singapore Children’s Society, and TOUCH Community Services. These community partners can advise victims on making a report to the OSC, and also provide other forms of support like counselling.

Statutory torts for online harms and availability of civil remedies

The OSRA Act also establishes statutory torts to define the responsibilities and liabilities of three key groups within the online ecosystem:

  • Communicators: Individuals must not communicate, publish or engage in any conduct in Singapore that involves specified online harms.
  • Administrators: Administrators must not create, manage or operate an online location in a way that facilitates or enables any specified online harm, where they intend or know such harm would occur. They must also take reasonable steps to address specified online harms on their online location once they are notified of them. Administrators’ duty to respond reasonably is triggered once they receive an Online Harm Notice from victims, sent in the prescribed form and manner. Victims may access this form on the MinLaw Online Safety website. 
  • Platforms: Platforms are required to take reasonable measures to address specified online harms upon receiving a report. Platforms’ duty to respond reasonably is also triggered when they receive the Online Harm Notice from victims. For platforms, they may choose to host the form that victims must use on the platform’s website itself. Certain platforms with wider reach are subject to additional obligations, including shorter response times to user reports. Examples of such platforms include YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram, Reddit, HardwareZone Forums. For such platforms, where the report concerns online harms generally, they must respond within 48 hours. However, if a victim reports intimate image abuse or image-based child abuse, the platforms must respond within 24 hours, or within 6 hours if the victim is female and the image complained of depicts the victim’s exposed private parts. 

Collectively, these statutory torts give victims of online harms a clear legal basis to bring civil claims against the parties above where they breach their duties, and to seek remedies through the court. The remedies that can be sought include compensatory damages (i.e. compensation for the harm suffered from the online harm, such as loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity etc.) and injunctions (i.e. orders to remove/stop the harmful content from being published or circulated). The process for seeking civil remedies for online harms is the same as filing a general civil suit/action. For more information on the process, you can refer to our other article on how to file an Originating Claim in Singapore.

The 9 categories of online harms covered by these statutory torts are:

  1. Online harassment (including online sexual harassment)
  2. Doxxing
  3. Online stalking
  4. Intimate image abuse
  5. Image-based child abuse
  6. Online impersonation
  7. Inauthentic material abuse. 
  8. Online instigation of disproportionate harm
  9. Incitement of violence

The statutory tort provisions will be implemented in phases. In the first phase, starting from 29 June 2026, victims of online harms falling into the following categories may hold the three key groups of actors, i.e., Communicators, Administrators or Platforms, responsible for their statutory duties under the OSRA Act:

  1. Online harassment (including online sexual harassment)
  2. Doxxing
  3. Online stalking
  4. Intimate image abuse
  5. Image-based child abuse

One additional feature of the statutory torts is that they are designed with the realities of online harm in mind. Specifically, when online harm occurs, it may be difficult for victims to prove their losses. This potentially affects the strength of the victims’ claim for compensatory damages, because the claimant is typically expected to prove and justify the amount of damages sought. Instead, where losses are difficult to prove, the OSRA Act provides for minimum damages for the most serious image-based harms. For intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse, the court will award a minimum of $5,000 for each image or recording if the claim is made out. 

Enhancing accountability of communicators of online harms

Lastly, the OSRA Act introduces measures to ensure that individuals who perpetrate online harms while hiding behind a mask of anonymity can be more effectively identified and held responsible.

The Commissioner is empowered to require platforms to disclose the identity information of end-users suspected of committing online harms (e.g. their name or contact details), where such information is already available to the platform. However, some bad actors may intentionally avoid providing accurate identity details, making it difficult to trace them. To address this, certain platforms with wider reach may also be required to take reasonable additional steps to collect further identity information from communicators of online harms.

A victim who files a report with the OSC may apply to obtain the communicator’s identity information for specific purposes, such as pursuing a statutory tort claim in court against the communicator who posted the harmful content.

Applications for end-user identity information must be made within 12 months from when the online harm occurred, or when the victim first became aware of the online harm, whichever comes later. If the application is successful, the information disclosed must only be used for the stated purposes, and any disclosure will be subject to conditions to prevent misuse of the information.

How Does the OSRA Act Interact With Existing Laws/Legislation as it Pertains to Online Harms?

The OSRA Act complements, rather than replaces, existing legal frameworks. It sits alongside:

The OSRA Act does not prevent victims from pursuing legal remedies under other existing laws. It is intended to expand, not restrict, victims’ options. Victims of online harassment, doxxing or stalking may continue to seek remedies against communicators under POHA. Likewise, those unsatisfied with outcomes under the OSRA Act may still proceed under POHA, OCHA, or the general law of defamation.

For specified online harms, such as intimate image abuse and image-based abuse, victims can pursue civil claims under the statutory torts created by the OSRA Act. Victims can also hold administrators or platforms accountable for failing to act reasonably after receiving an Online Harm Notice.

—

In conclusion, the OSRA Act marks a significant step in Singapore’s digital governance landscape. By integrating enforcement tools, avenues for civil recourse, and duties on platforms, it establishes a cohesive and victim-focused framework to address online harms promptly and effectively.

With the OSRA Act having come into force, victims of online harm can seek guidance or advice from a litigation lawyer, who can guide you through the OSC processes or civil claims. The lawyer will also be able to advise you on alternative avenues for seeking redress apart from under the OSRA framework.

Samuel Teo
NUS Law graduate keen on writing, travelling, and whipping up tasty meals for friends and family.