X Corp. v Jessica Simpson

November 4, 2025May 21, 2026 MeowMix Online

That’s right folks X has filed a Petition naming Jessica Simpson aka Jessica Yaniv aka Jonathan Yaniv, everyone’s least favourite WaxMyBalls creep.

Praise Elon Musk and his Canadian lawyers for X for fighting the $100,000 fine imposed by the CRT – for a picture of a hairy backed man with Jessica Simpson’s head photoshopped on it.

It is sad that X aren’t arguing that the image isn’t “intimate” but it is still a glorious response. In honour of the wonders of AI – we asked Grok to give us a summary of this petition.

A copy is below for your viewing / downloading pleasure.

THANK GROK FOR THIS LAWSUIT

Overview

This is a petition filed by X Corp. (the company operating the social media platform X, formerly Twitter) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on October 30, 2025. It seeks judicial review of a decision by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) under British Columbia’s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA). The CRT imposed a $100,000 administrative penalty on X Corp. for allegedly failing to comply with a protection order requiring the removal of an “intimate image.” X Corp. argues that it complied by geo-blocking the image in Canada and that the CRT’s demand for global removal exceeds provincial authority, violates international comity, and is unconstitutional. The respondent is Jessica Simpson (referred to as “TR” in the CRT decision), a transgender individual in British Columbia who sought the original protection order.

Parties Involved

Petitioner: X Corp., a U.S.-based company headquartered in Texas with no offices or servers in Canada.
Respondent: Jessica Simpson (TR), residing in British Columbia.
Other Notified Parties: The CRT, the Ministry of Attorney General (Legal Services Branch), and CRT representatives Zara Rahman and Eliza McCullum.

Key Facts and Timeline

Background on the IIPA: Enacted in 2023, the IIPA allows the CRT to issue protection orders for the removal of non-consensually distributed intimate images (defined as visuals showing nudity, sexual acts, etc., where privacy was expected). Internet intermediaries like X Corp. are not liable if they take “reasonable steps” to address such content. Penalties for non-compliance cap at $5,000 per day for intermediaries, up to $100,000 total.
The Images and Protection Order: TR applied to the CRT for orders regarding three images: an “altered image,” a “genitals image,” and a “blurred image.” On March 28, 2025, the CRT (Vice Chair Regehr) issued a protection order for the “altered image” and “genitals image” (original order). The “blurred image” was dismissed as not intimate. Later, on May 26, 2025, the order was amended to cover only the “altered image” after finding TR had posted the “genitals image” herself, forfeiting privacy.
X Corp.’s Response: Upon receiving the order around April 13, 2025, X Corp. geo-blocked the “altered image” in Canada (using IP addresses to restrict access) and suspended the posting account. This made the image inaccessible to Canadian users.
TR’s Penalty Application: On April 7, 2025, TR requested penalties, claiming non-compliance. X Corp. responded in June 2025, arguing geo-blocking sufficed and citing Canadian constitutional limits on provincial laws.
CRT’s Administrative Penalty Decision (September 4, 2025): The Vice Chair ruled that geo-blocking was insufficient, requiring global deletion. He imposed the maximum $100,000 penalty but denied TR compensation due to her misleading submissions. The decision was published despite typical non-publication for such cases.
No Evidence of Access: TR provided no proof of third-party access to the image in Canada or elsewhere after geo-blocking. X Corp. notes geo-blocking is a standard, effective measure.

Orders Sought by X Corp.

Quash the CRT’s penalty decision.
Substitute a decision finding X Corp. complied or made reasonable efforts.
Alternatively, remit the matter to the CRT with directions.
Amend the protection order to apply only in British Columbia (if needed).
Order disclosure of the CRT’s full dispute file (if not voluntarily provided).
Any other relief deemed just.

Legal Arguments

X Corp. contends the CRT’s decision is incorrect, patently unreasonable, and should be quashed. Key grounds include:

Compliance with the Order: X Corp. argues it fully complied by geo-blocking in Canada, making the image unavailable there. Alternatively, this constitutes “reasonable steps” under IIPA s. 12, exempting intermediaries from liability.
Territorial Limits of Provincial Law: British Columbia’s legislature (and thus the CRT) cannot enact or enforce laws with extraterritorial effect. The IIPA and CRT Act are limited to the province. Citing Supreme Court of Canada cases (e.g., British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49), X Corp. asserts provincial powers are confined by s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Vice Chair erred by presuming global authority without interpreting the statute within these limits.
Violation of International Comity: Global removal disrespects other nations’ sovereignty and free speech laws. It could allow foreign courts to dictate Canadian internet content, leading to a “race to the bottom” where the most restrictive laws prevail. Courts worldwide (e.g., in Australia, EU, UK, Germany, Brazil, U.S.) have rejected global orders, favoring geo-blocking. Examples include eSafety Commissioner v. X Corp [2024] FCA 499 (Australia) and Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (U.S. 2017), where geo-blocking was deemed sufficient.
Geo-Blocking as Adequate Remedy: It’s effective and respects comity. TR’s VPN circumvention argument is speculative and unsupported by evidence; similar claims have been rejected in other jurisdictions.
Presumptions in Statutory Interpretation: The Vice Chair ignored the presumption against extraterritoriality (statutes don’t apply abroad without clear intent) and the presumption of constitutionality (interpret to avoid invalidity). Section 5 of the IIPA should be read down to apply only in British Columbia.
Standard of Review: Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo (afresh by the court). Statutory interpretation is on patent unreasonableness under the CRT Act, but the Vice Chair’s refusal to engage with arguments leaves nothing to defer to.
Additional Concerns: If the IIPA is interpreted as globally applicable, it’s ultra vires (beyond provincial power). The court can read in territorial limits to make it constitutional.

Materials Relied On