DIRECTIONS TO COUNTERACT INAUTHENTIC ONLINE ACCOUNTS AND COORDINATED INAUTHENTIC BEHAVIOUR
Account Restriction Direction
40.—(1) If the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, any Minister may instruct the Competent Authority to issue a direction to a prescribed internet intermediary requiring it to do one or both of the following:
(a)
disallow its services from being used to communicate any statement in Singapore through one or more specified online accounts;
(b)
disallow any person from using one or more specified online accounts to interact with any end‑user of its internet intermediary service in Singapore.
(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are —
(a)
the specified online account or accounts (called in this Part the specified online account) is or are created with the prescribed internet intermediary;
(b)
either —
(i)
a false statement of fact (called in this Part the subject statement) has been communicated in Singapore using the specified online account; or
(ii)
coordinated inauthentic behaviour (called in this Part the subject behaviour) has been carried out using the specified online account;
(c)
the Minister in subsection (1) has determined that the specified online account is an inauthentic online account or is controlled by a bot; and
(d)
the Minister in subsection (1) is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Account Restriction Direction.
(3) An Account Restriction Direction may specify that it has effect —
(a)
indefinitely; or
(b)
for a specified period not exceeding 3 months.
(4) In determining whether an online account is an inauthentic online account or is controlled by a bot, the Minister must have regard to the following factors:
(a)
whether any information used in creating the online account relates to a country or territory that is not the country or territory that the holder of the account is purportedly from;
(b)
whether there is a pattern of suspicious activity carried out using the online account;
(c)
the date on which the online account was created;
(d)
any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.
(5) An Account Restriction Direction must identify in sufficient detail the subject statement or the subject behaviour, as the case may be.
(6) An Account Restriction Direction may require the prescribed internet intermediary to which it is issued to do an act in or outside Singapore.
(7) A prescribed internet intermediary is responsible for the costs of complying with an Account Restriction Direction issued to it.
(8) In this section, “specified” means specified in the Account Restriction Direction.
Service of Account Restriction Directions
41. An Account Restriction Direction may be served by such means (including electronic means) as may be prescribed —
(a)
on the prescribed internet intermediary to whom it is issued; or
(b)
on a person in Singapore that the prescribed internet intermediary has appointed to accept service on the internet intermediary’s behalf.
Non-compliance with Account Restriction Direction an offence
42.—(1) A prescribed internet intermediary to whom an Account Restriction Direction is issued and served, and who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the Direction whether in or outside Singapore, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
(a)
in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both; or
(b)
in any other case, to a fine not exceeding $1 million,
and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $100,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction.
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that —
(a)
the prescribed internet intermediary is subject to a duty under any written law, any rule of law, any contract or any rule of professional conduct, that prevents the internet intermediary from complying with any part of the Account Restriction Direction or restricts the internet intermediary in such compliance; or
(b)
the prescribed internet intermediary has applied under section 46 to vary or cancel the Direction or has appealed to the General Division of the High Court against the Direction.
[40/2019]
(3) No civil or criminal liability is incurred by the prescribed internet intermediary or an officer, employee or agent of the internet intermediary, for doing or omitting to do any act, if the act is done or omitted to be done with reasonable care and in good faith and for the purpose of complying with or giving effect to the Account Restriction Direction.
(4) In determining whether a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an Account Restriction Direction, the court must consider —
(a)
the state of the art available to give effect to the Direction;
(b)
the cost of complying with the Direction relative to the means available to the person; and
(c)
any other relevant factor.
Access blocking order
43.—(1) This section applies where —
(a)
an internet intermediary fails to comply with an Account Restriction Direction;
(b)
either —
(i)
the subject statement was or is being communicated in Singapore on an online location; or
(ii)
the subject behaviour took place or is taking place on an online location;
(c)
the internet intermediary has control over access by end‑users in any place to that online location; and
(d)
the Minister is satisfied that one or more end‑users in Singapore have used or are using the services of an internet access service provider to access that online location.
(2) The Minister may direct the IMDA to order the internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end‑users in Singapore to the online location (called in this section an access blocking order), and the IMDA must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order.
(3) An internet access service provider that does not comply with an access blocking order under subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 for each day during any part of which that order is not fully complied with, up to a total of $500,000 for each offence.
(4) No civil or criminal liability is incurred by an internet access service provider or an officer, employee or agent of such provider, for anything done or omitted to be done with reasonable care and in good faith in complying with an access blocking order.
Appeals to General Division of High Court
44.—(1) The following persons may appeal to the General Division of the High Court against an Account Restriction Direction:
(a)
the prescribed internet intermediary to whom the Direction is issued;
(b)
the holder of the specified online account or any other person with control over the specified online account.
[40/2019]
(2) No appeal may be made to the General Division of the High Court by any person unless the person has first applied to the Minister mentioned in section 46 to vary or cancel the Account Restriction Direction under that section, and the Minister refused the application whether in whole or in part.
[40/2019]
(3) An appeal may only be made to the General Division of the High Court within such period as may be prescribed by Rules of Court.
[40/2019]
(4) The General Division of the High Court must hear and determine any such appeal and may either confirm the Account Restriction Direction or set it aside.
[40/2019]
(5) The General Division of the High Court may only set aside an Account Restriction Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal by the prescribed internet intermediary:
(a)
the specified online account has not been used to communicate in Singapore the subject statement or carry out the subject behaviour;
(b)
either of the following (whichever is applicable):
(i)
the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact;
(ii)
the subject behaviour is not a coordinated inauthentic behaviour;
(c)
it is not technically possible to comply with the Direction.
[40/2019]
(6) The General Division of the High Court may only set aside an Account Restriction Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal by the holder of, or the person having control over, the specified online account:
(a)
the specified online account had not been used to communicate in Singapore the subject statement or carry out the subject behaviour;
(b)
either of the following (whichever is applicable):
(i)
the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact;
(ii)
the subject behaviour is not a coordinated inauthentic behaviour;
(c)
the account is not an inauthentic online account or controlled by a bot, as the case may be.
[40/2019]
(7) An Account Restriction Direction that is the subject of an appeal under subsection (1) remains in effect despite the appeal, and only ceases to have effect if it is set aside by the General Division of the High Court or the appellate court on appeal from the General Division of the High Court, or if it expires or is cancelled under section 46.
[40/2019]
(8) Despite subsection (7), if the appellant (being the prescribed internet intermediary) establishes a prima facie case that it is technically impossible to comply with the Account Restriction Direction, the General Division of the High Court may direct that the Direction be stayed pending determination of the appeal.
[40/2019]
(9) There is such further right of appeal from a decision of the General Division of the High Court under this section as exists in the case of a decision made by the General Division of the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
[40/2019]
(10) Rules of Court may provide for the manner in which and the time within which an appeal under subsection (1) may be made and for the procedure for an application to stay an Account Restriction Direction appealed against.
Other causes of action not affected
45. The issue of a Direction in relation to an inauthentic online account does not affect any power or right of any person (including a Minister, the Competent Authority or the Government) to take any other action under this Act or any other law in relation to that account, or the power of the Public Prosecutor to initiate proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other law in relation to that account.
Variation or cancellation of Account Restriction Direction
46.—(1) The Minister who instructed the Competent Authority to issue an Account Restriction Direction may at any time instruct the Competent Authority to vary or cancel an Account Restriction Direction, by serving a written notice on the prescribed internet intermediary to whom the Direction is issued.
(2) The Minister may instruct the Competent Authority to vary or cancel an Account Restriction Direction under subsection (1) —
(a)
on the Minister’s own initiative; or
(b)
on an application by —
(i)
the prescribed internet intermediary to whom the Direction is issued; or
(ii)
the holder of the specified online account or any other person with control over the specified online account.
(3) Sections 41 to 44 apply in relation to an Account Restriction Direction that is varied under this section as they apply in relation to the original Direction.
(4) Section 41 applies in relation to the notice cancelling the Account Restriction Direction under this section as it applies in relation to the original Direction.
