TRW & Co · Media, advertising and content
Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act: Getting Harmful Content Removed
The Online Safety Commission in Singapore has been taking reports since 29 June 2026. Victims of online harassment, doxxing, stalking, intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse can ask it, free of charge, to order content removed or accounts restricted. New statutory torts also let victims sue posters, group administrators and, once properly notified, platforms.
Key pointThe Online Harm Notice is the hinge of platform and administrator liability: their statutory duty to act is triggered only once a notice in the prescribed form is received, so victims who want to preserve a damages claim should serve one early and keep proof of delivery.
At a glance
Operational since June 2026
The Commission began operations on 29 June 2026 under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, passed by Parliament on 5 November 2025.
Five harms first
Online harassment, doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse are covered now; eight further categories will follow progressively.
Platform first, sometimes
For harassment and stalking, report to the platform first and escalate after an inadequate response within 24 hours; for the other three, go direct.
Free, with appeals
Reports cost nothing; reconsideration must be sought within 14 days, and a further appeal to the Online Safety Appeal Panel within 14 days.
New statutory torts
Victims can sue posters, administrators and notified platforms; for intimate image abuse the court awards at least S$5,000 per image or recording.
Swipe or scroll →
The short answer: a faster route to get harmful content removed
The Online Safety Commission in Singapore began operations on 29 June 2026. It gives victims of certain serious online harms a free, administrative route to have content taken down or accounts restricted, without first going to court. The Commission was created by the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025, which Parliament passed on 5 November 2025.
In the first phase, the Commission deals with five harms: online harassment (including online sexual harassment), doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse. For the last three, victims can go straight to the Commission. For harassment and stalking, they should report to the platform first and may escalate if the platform has not responded adequately within 24 hours.
The Act also created new statutory torts. As of October 2026, victims of the same five harms can sue the person who posted the material, the administrator of the group or page that hosted it, and in some cases the platform itself. This article explains how the Commission works, what it can order, how the torts operate and how they fit with existing remedies.
What changed and when
According to the Ministry of Law, the Commission began operations, and specified statutory tort provisions took effect, on 29 June 2026. The Act identifies thirteen categories of online harm, but only five are in force in the first phase. The remaining eight are to be implemented progressively, and the Ministry has not published dates for them.
Reporting to the Commission is free. Victims can report for themselves, parents or guardians can report for victims under 18, and another individual can report with the victim's written authorisation. Community partners, including counselling and victim-support organisations, can help people make reports.
The Ministry describes a 'no-wrong-door' approach: someone who approaches the wrong agency will be directed to the right help. Reports are made through the Online Safety Commission website, with supporting material such as URLs, screenshots, images and videos.
| Phase | Harms | Status as of October 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| First phase | Online harassment (including online sexual harassment), doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse, image-based child abuse | In force since 29 June 2026 for Commission reports and statutory torts |
| Later phases | Online impersonation, inauthentic material abuse, online instigation of disproportionate harm, incitement of violence, incitement of enmity, publication of false material, publication of a statement harmful to reputation, non-consensual disclosure of private information | To be implemented progressively; no commencement dates announced |
Two later-phase categories, false material and statements harmful to reputation, overlap with defamation. Until they commence, reputational attacks are still dealt with through the courts. Our guide on how to sue for defamation in Singapore explains that route.
How to apply to the Online Safety Commission in Singapore
The process is designed to be quick and accessible to individuals without lawyers. Even so, a well-prepared report is more likely to lead to prompt action. The typical sequence is set out below.
- Capture the evidence. Take screenshots showing the content, the account name, the date and time and the URL. Save copies of images or videos. Do not engage with the poster or share the material further.
- Decide whether to report to the platform first. For online harassment and online stalking, report the content to the platform using its in-app tools. For intimate image abuse, image-based child abuse and doxxing, you can go directly to the Commission.
- Wait for the platform's response, briefly. If the platform does not respond promptly, or responds inadequately within 24 hours, you can escalate to the Commission. Keep a record of when you reported and what the platform said.
- Submit a report to the Commission. Use the Commission's website. Describe the harm, attach the evidence and explain who is affected. Reporting is free. Parents can report for children, and others can report with written authorisation.
- Commission assessment and directions. If there is reason to suspect online harm, the Commissioner of Online Safety may issue directions to the poster, the group administrator or the platform, such as disabling access to content or restricting an account.
- Reconsideration and appeal. Eligible persons can ask for reconsideration within 14 days of a decision, free of charge. If still dissatisfied, they can appeal to the Online Safety Appeal Panel within 14 days of the reconsidered decision; a fee applies.
Evidence disappears fast. Posters often delete content once they realise a complaint has been made, and platforms remove material without notifying the victim. Capturing full-page screenshots with visible URLs and timestamps before reporting keeps open both the Commission route and any later court claim.
What the Commission can order
The Online Safety Commission in Singapore acts through the Commissioner of Online Safety, who may issue directions where there is reason to suspect online harm. The Ministry gives disabling access to harmful content and restricting the perpetrator's account as examples. Commentary on the Act describes a wider toolkit, including directions to take down content, suspend accounts, disable access and allow the victim to post a reply, and directions to internet service providers and app stores in appropriate cases.
Failing to comply with a direction is a criminal offence. That gives the Commission real leverage over local and foreign platforms that serve Singapore users, and over individual posters who might otherwise ignore a demand letter.
The Online Safety Commission in Singapore can also help victims who do not know who is behind an account. A victim who intends to bring civil proceedings may apply for end-user identity information. The application must be made within 12 months of the harm or of first becoming aware of it, whichever is later, and the information may be used only for its stated purposes.
The new statutory torts: suing posters, administrators and platforms
The statutory torts are the most significant change for lawyers and platforms. They allow victims of the first-phase harms to bring civil claims in court against three categories of duty-holder, each with a different duty.
| Duty-holder | Duty | When it is triggered |
|---|---|---|
| Communicator (the poster) | Must not communicate or publish harmful material or engage in harmful online conduct | On publication or conduct |
| Administrator of a group, page or forum | Must not run the space in a way that facilitates harm; must take reasonable steps to address harm once properly notified | On receipt of an Online Harm Notice in the prescribed form |
| Platform | Must take reasonable steps to address harm within a reasonable time once properly notified | On receipt of an Online Harm Notice; prescribed platforms have specified time periods |
Whether an administrator or platform has responded reasonably depends on the facts. For platforms prescribed under the Act, the court will expect action within specified time periods unless the platform shows that acting within that time was not reasonable. The Ministry's materials identify the prescribed platforms.
For intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse, the Ministry states that the court will award at least S$5,000 per image or recording if the claim is made out. That statutory minimum is designed to make claims worthwhile even where it is hard to prove financial loss.
The Online Harm Notice is the key procedural step. A victim who wants to hold an administrator or platform liable should serve a notice in the prescribed form and manner and keep proof of delivery. Our online safety and content regulation team advises victims, administrators and platforms on these notices.
How the Online Safety Commission in Singapore compares with POHA, POFMA and defamation
The Online Safety Commission in Singapore does not replace existing laws. The Ministry confirms that victims of harassment, doxxing and stalking can still seek remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, including protection orders. Our article on Protection from Harassment Act protection orders explains that route in detail.
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 addresses falsehoods that affect the public interest and is initiated by the Government, not by private victims. Defamation remains a court claim for damage to reputation.
In practice, these routes can be combined. A victim might ask the Commission for urgent removal of doxxed material, seek a POHA protection order against the person behind it, and later bring a statutory tort or defamation claim for damages. Each route has its own procedural requirements and evidential standards, so sequencing them deliberately avoids inconsistent positions and duplicated costs. Commission directions are also no substitute for a court finding: a poster who disputes the Commission's view can seek reconsideration and appeal, and the court will form its own view in any later civil claim.
| Route | Best for | Speed and cost | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Online Safety Commission | First-phase harms needing fast removal | Free; administrative; fast | Directions to remove content or restrict accounts |
| Statutory tort claim | Victims seeking damages or court orders against posters, administrators or platforms | Court proceedings; legal costs | Damages, including statutory minimum for image abuse; court remedies |
| POHA application | Harassment, stalking, doxxing and false statements of fact about a person | Court process, often in the Protection from Harassment Court | Protection orders, stop-publication and correction orders |
| Defamation claim | Serious damage to reputation | Full civil litigation; costly | Damages and injunctions |
Illustrative scenario: a doxxing campaign against a business owner
This scenario is illustrative only and does not describe any real person or case. After a customer dispute, a café owner's home address, phone number and photographs of her children are posted in a public social media group, with posts urging members to 'pay her a visit'. Some members repost the material on other platforms.
Because doxxing is a first-phase harm, the owner can report directly to the Online Safety Commission in Singapore without first waiting for the platforms. She captures screenshots, lists the URLs and submits a report. The Commissioner may direct the platforms to disable access to the posts and may direct the group administrator to remove them.
Separately, the owner serves an Online Harm Notice on the group administrator. If the administrator does nothing, she may have a statutory tort claim against both the original poster and the administrator. Where she does not know who the original poster is, she can apply for end-user identity information within 12 months. If the harassment continues offline, a POHA protection order may also be appropriate.
Risks and common mistakes
Going to the Commission for harms not yet in force
Only five harms are covered in the first phase. Content that is merely false, offensive or damaging to reputation is not yet within the Commission's remit unless it also amounts to harassment, doxxing, stalking or image abuse.
Before filing, check whether the content fits a first-phase category. If it does not, defamation, POHA or a platform complaint may be the better route for now.
Skipping the platform report for harassment or stalking
For online harassment and online stalking, the Ministry's guidance is that victims should report to the platform first and escalate only if the response is slow or inadequate within 24 hours. Filing with the Commission straight away may delay matters.
Report to the platform, record the time and response, and then escalate with that record attached.
Administrators ignoring an Online Harm Notice
Administrators of community groups, forums and pages, including businesses running customer communities, now have a duty to take reasonable steps once properly notified. Ignoring a notice can expose the administrator to a statutory tort claim.
Organisations that run online communities should set up a process to receive, log and act on notices, and should train moderators on the first-phase harms.
Retaliating online
Victims sometimes respond by naming the perpetrator or posting their details. That can itself amount to harassment or doxxing and undermine the victim's own complaint or claim.
Keep responses offline and let the Commission, platforms or courts deal with the content.
What platforms and businesses should do now
Platforms serving Singapore users should expect directions from the Online Safety Commission in Singapore and should review their reporting flows, response times and escalation procedures against the 24-hour expectation and any specified periods for prescribed platforms. They should also prepare to receive Commission directions and end-user identity orders, which may require coordination with global trust and safety teams.
Businesses that run forums, customer groups or fan pages are 'administrators' for the purposes of the Act. They need a moderation policy, a way to receive Online Harm Notices and a record of actions taken. Data handling in this process must also comply with the PDPA; see our data protection and PDPA practice.
Employers should note that online harassment of staff by customers or colleagues can now be escalated to the Commission. HR policies should explain the options. Our article on online content governance covers broader content controls.
Next steps and cross-border considerations
Much harmful content is posted from outside Singapore or hosted on foreign platforms. The jurisdictional reach of the Online Safety Commission in Singapore is therefore a practical question in many cases. The Commission's directions are aimed at platforms serving Singapore users, and statutory tort claims against foreign posters raise questions of service and enforcement abroad. TRW & Co coordinates with counsel in Bangladesh, the UK, the UAE and China where perpetrators or assets are located overseas, and where Singapore court representation is required we work alongside Singapore-qualified counsel.
- Capture full evidence, with URLs and timestamps, before reporting.
- Check whether the harm is one of the five first-phase categories.
- Report to the platform first for harassment or stalking; go direct for doxxing and image abuse.
- File with the Online Safety Commission in Singapore if the platform response is inadequate.
- Serve an Online Harm Notice if you may want to sue an administrator or platform.
- Apply for end-user identity information within 12 months if the poster is anonymous.
- Consider POHA or defamation where the harm falls outside the first phase.
For advice on a complaint, a notice you have received or your platform's obligations, contact TRW & Co. Our defamation and urgent injunctions teams can act quickly where court relief is needed.
Frequently asked questions
01What is the Online Safety Commission in Singapore?
It is a government body established under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025 that began operations on 29 June 2026. It receives reports from victims of specified online harms and can issue directions to posters, group administrators and platforms, such as disabling access to content or restricting an account. It also helps victims identify anonymous perpetrators for the purpose of civil proceedings. Reporting to the Commission is free.
02Which online harms can I report to the Online Safety Commission?
In the first phase, the Commission handles online harassment including online sexual harassment, doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse. The Act lists eight further categories, including online impersonation, inauthentic material abuse such as deepfakes, publication of false material and statements harmful to reputation, but these will be implemented progressively. Content outside the first five categories must, for now, be handled through other routes such as POHA or defamation.
03Do I have to report to the platform before going to the Commission?
It depends on the harm. For online harassment and online stalking, the Ministry of Law's guidance is to report to the platform first and to escalate to the Commission if the platform does not respond promptly or gives an inadequate response within 24 hours. For intimate image abuse, image-based child abuse and doxxing, you can report directly to the Commission. Keep a record of any platform report and response.
04Can I sue a platform for failing to remove harmful content?
Under the new statutory torts, a platform must take reasonable steps to address first-phase harms within a reasonable time once properly notified through an Online Harm Notice in the prescribed form. Prescribed platforms must act within specified periods unless they show the court that doing so was not reasonable. A claim therefore usually depends on having served a valid notice and on the platform's response being inadequate. Advice on the notice and the evidence is important.
05What if I do not know who posted the harmful content?
If you intend to bring civil proceedings, you can apply to the Online Safety Commission for end-user identity information about the person responsible. The application must be made within 12 months of the harm occurring or of you first becoming aware of it, whichever is later. Any information disclosed may only be used for its stated purposes and is subject to conditions, so it should be handled carefully.
06Can I appeal a decision of the Online Safety Commission?
Yes. An eligible person can ask for reconsideration within 14 days of the Commission's initial decision, and there is no fee. The Commissioner may affirm, revoke, vary or substitute the decision. If still dissatisfied, a party can appeal to the independent Online Safety Appeal Panel within 14 days of the reconsidered decision. A fee is payable for the appeal. The subsidiary rules define who counts as an eligible person for these purposes.
Sources and official materials
- Ministry of Law: The Online Safety Commission begins operations on 29 June 2026 — First-phase harms, reporting, directions, torts, appeals
- Ministry of Law: OSC and OSRA to start on 29 June 2026 — Commencement announcement
- Online Safety Commission — Official reporting portal and guidance
- Protection from Harassment Act 2014 — Protection orders and remedies that continue alongside OSRA
- Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 — Government-initiated falsehood directions
General information only, current as at 20 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Singapore law and regulatory practice change; check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.
