In Japan, the unauthorised disclosure or publication of facts or information relating to an individual’s private life that the person wishes to keep confidential constitutes an infringement of privacy. The right to privacy is recognised as part of an individual’s personality rights, which are grounded in Article 13 of the Constitution, guaranteeing respect for the individual and their right to pursue happiness.

Whether information is protected as a privacy interest is assessed based on three elements:

• it concerns private life (private matters);
• it is information which a person would ordinarily not wish to be disclosed (confidential nature); and
• it is not yet generally known (non-public nature).

Whether an infringement has occurred is determined by balancing the legally protected interest in non-disclosure against the reasons for publication.

In addition, the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) is intended to protect individuals’ rights and interests, including privacy. The APPI imposes obligations on personal information-handling business operators, such as the duty to implement security control measures (Article 23). It also provides for requests for suspension of use or provision in the event of a reportable data breach (Articles 26(1) and 35), among other remedies.

Both damages' claims and injunctions are available as remedies for privacy infringements. Pre-publication injunctions may be granted where the infringing act is clearly foreseeable, the victim is likely to suffer serious harm as a result, and post-publication remedies would be impossible or extremely difficult.

As a general guideline, damages typically range from approximately JPY100,000 to JPY500,000. However, higher amounts may be awarded, depending on factors such as the seriousness, duration and scope of the infringement, the social status of the victim, the degree of intent or negligence of the defendant, and the maliciousness or persistence of the conduct.

Claims for damages arising from privacy infringement are tort claims. The limitation period is three years from the time the victim becomes aware of both the damage and the perpetrator, with an absolute limitation period of 20 years from the time of the infringing act (Article 724 of the Civil Code). By contrast, injunctions, which aim to stop ongoing or future infringements, are not subject to limitation periods.

Unlike defamation, privacy claims do not allow defences based on the truth of the disclosed facts or on reasonable grounds based on the public interest. This is because, by their nature, privacy infringements may become more serious the more truthful the disclosed information is.

In addition, while defamation may be found lawful where the subject matter concerns public interest and is published for a public purpose, the disclosure of private life information is in principle unlawful even where the person concerned is a politician or other public figure.

Case law seeks to reconcile the protection of privacy with freedom of expression by balancing the competing interests when determining whether claims for damages or injunctions should be upheld.

In civil proceedings, the complaint and other pleadings must include the parties’ names and addresses, and court records are, in principle, open to public inspection. To prevent victims from refraining from bringing actions due to concerns about disclosure of their identity or address, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a party anonymisation system under Chapter VIII. Where there is a risk that disclosure of a party’s name or address to the opposing party would cause serious disruption to the person’s social life, the court may permit anonymisation (Article 133(1)). Privacy infringement cases are not excluded from this system.

Jurisdiction for damages' claims arising from privacy infringement lies either with the court of the defendant’s domicile (or, for a corporation, its principal place of business) or the court of the place of the tort, being either the place of the infringing act or the place where the damage occurred (Article 5(ix)). In practice, injunction claims are treated in the same manner.

The “place of the tort” encompasses both the location where the information was disclosed and the place where the victim’s peaceful private life was infringed, typically the victim’s place of residence. In cases involving online posts, where the place of viewing cannot be geographically limited, courts take a flexible approach. Evidence typically includes screenshots of posts or articles showing the date, time and URL, as well as documents identifying the victim’s place of residence.

Legal costs may be recovered. In addition, attorneys’ fees may be included in the scope of recoverable damages in tort claims.

In business-to-business (B2B) transactions, it is common for personal information handled by the parties to be covered by non-disclosure agreements for privacy protection purposes. However, there are no statutory restrictions specifically dedicated to privacy in this context, and limitations are instead derived from general principles such as public policy and good morals under the Civil Code (Article 90), as well as from consideration for freedom of expression and other rights and interests.

A recent notable feature of privacy litigation is that, in some data breach cases, courts have recognised privacy infringements without conducting a detailed, case-specific balancing exercise under the traditional analytical framework, a development that has attracted attention in practice.

In online privacy infringement cases, perpetrators are often anonymous. As a result, before bringing damages' claims, it may be necessary to identify the offender through a sender information disclosure request under the Act on Measures Against Rights Infringement, etc, Arising from Distribution of Information by Specified Telecommunications.

Under that Act, large-scale specified telecommunications service providers designated by the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications (such as Google, Meta and X) are required to establish and publish procedures and standards for removal and other measures to prevent the transmission of infringing information. Where the applicable standards or statutory exceptions are satisfied, those providers may take measures to prevent the transmission of infringing content (Article 26(1)).

In addition, injunctions against platform operators may be granted in privacy infringement cases. The Supreme Court has held that, although deletion of search results (Google) and deletion of social media posts (X) should in principle be assessed using similar balancing factors to those applied in traditional publication cases, different standards apply. Specifically, for search results, the Court requires that it be “clearly” established that the interest in non-disclosure prevails, whereas this requirement does not apply to social media posts. Careful practical handling is therefore required in light of these differing approaches.

In Japan, both criminal and civil liability may arise in relation to defamation.

Criminally, defamation is defined under Article 230 of the Penal Code and requires:

• public disclosure;
• the statement of facts; and
• harm to another person’s reputation.

Depending on the circumstances, conduct may also constitute insult (Article 231), credit defamation or obstruction of business (Article 233).

Under civil law, defamation may arise either from the statement of facts or from opinions or commentary. Even where expressions are capable of harming reputation, a claim requires that the person’s objective social reputation has actually been diminished. Such claims are based on tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code. In addition, an infringement of a person’s subjective feelings of honour may also constitute a tort.

For defamation, both damages and injunctions are available. In addition, the court may order appropriate measures to restore the victim’s reputation (Article 723 of the Civil Code).

Pre-publication injunctions are also available. However, because they impose serious restrictions on freedom of expression, they are granted only under strict conditions. Specifically, such relief is available only where:

• it is evident that the content is untrue or that it was not published solely for the public interest; and
• there is a risk that the victim will suffer serious and irreparable harm.

The court will also balance the disadvantages to both parties, taking into account factors such as their social status and the nature of the conduct.

As a general guideline, where the victim is an individual, damages typically range from approximately JPY100,000 to JPY500,000. However, depending on factors such as the maliciousness of the conduct, its duration and whether it was repeated, awards in the range of approximately JPY1 million to JPY2.5 million may be granted. Where the victim is a corporation, damages typically range from approximately JPY500,000 to JPY1 million, taking into account reputational and credit harm, although in serious cases awards may reach several million yen.

Criminal Proceedings

The statute of limitations for the offence of defamation is three years. Defamation is a crime prosecutable only upon complaint, and a criminal complaint must be filed within six months from the date on which the victim becomes aware of the offender.

Where the act relates to matters of public interest and is conducted solely for the benefit of the public, illegality is excluded if the facts are proven to be true (Article 230-2 of the Penal Code). In addition, where the accused mistakenly believed the facts to be true and had reasonable grounds for that belief based on reliable materials, criminal intent may be negated under the defence of reasonable belief. Journalistic activities may also be protected under these principles.

Civil Proceedings

For civil claims based on tort, the limitation period is three years from the time the victim becomes aware of both the damage and the perpetrator, and there is an absolute limitation period of 20 years from the time of the infringing act (Article 724 of the Civil Code). Injunctions, which aim to prevent ongoing or future infringements, are not subject to limitation periods.

Although there is no express statutory provision equivalent to that in criminal law, in cases of defamation by statement of facts, the defences of truth and reasonable grounds are taken into account in determining whether a tort has been committed. With respect to opinions and commentary, expressions do not constitute defamation unless they go beyond the permissible scope of opinion, such as by amounting to personal attacks. Where opinions are based on underlying facts, the defences of truth and reasonable grounds are also examined.

Distinction between Criminal and Civil Proceedings

Defamation is a crime prosecutable only upon complaint, and the six-month time limit for filing a complaint must be observed. In contrast, civil damages' claims based on defamation are subject to a three-year limitation period and a 20-year long-stop period. Accordingly, civil proceedings may still be brought even after the time limit for filing a criminal complaint has expired.

Private or Anonymised Proceedings

Criminal trials are in principle open to the public. However, where there is a risk of harm to the victim’s reputation or peaceful life, measures such as the redaction of identifying information in indictments (Article 256(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and shielding measures during trial (Article 157-2) may be permitted.

In civil proceedings, although disclosure of the parties’ names and addresses and access to court records are the general rule, the party anonymisation system (Chapter VIII, Article 133(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure) may be applied where disclosure would cause serious disruption to a person’s social life. Defamation cases are not excluded from this system.

Jurisdiction

In criminal cases, offences for which a fine is available as a sentencing option may fall within the jurisdiction of summary courts, although the choice between a summary court and a district court is made by the public prosecutor. Jurisdiction lies with the court of the place of the crime (the place of the act or the place where the result occurred) or the place of the defendant’s domicile. In cases involving social media posts, the place of the crime may include both the location where the offender made the post and the place where the victim’s social reputation was harmed, such as the victim’s place of residence or workplace.

In civil cases, jurisdiction for damages and injunction claims lies with the court of the defendant’s domicile (or, for a corporation, its principal place of business) or the place of the tort (the place of the act or the place where the result occurred). The place of the tort includes locations where the expression was disseminated and places where the victim’s reputation is likely to have been harmed. In cases involving online posts, courts adopt a flexible approach. Typical evidence includes screenshots of posts or articles (showing the date, time and URL) and documents demonstrating the victim’s principal place of residence or employment.

Legal costs may be recovered. In addition, attorneys’ fees may be included as part of recoverable damages in tort claims.

In civil cases, courts may order appropriate measures to restore the victim’s reputation (Article 723 of the Civil Code). Examples include the publication of corrective statements or public apologies.

Act on the Regulation of Stalking and Similar Conduct

The Act on the Regulation of Stalking and Similar Conduct prohibits conduct such as persistent following or monitoring, and the unauthorised acquisition of location information, where such conduct causes harm to a person’s personal safety, the peace of their residence or their reputation, or creates serious anxiety by substantially restricting their freedom of action (Article 3). A person who commits stalking conduct may be subject to imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to JPY1 million (Article 18).

Criminal Liability

Depending on the nature and circumstances, harassment may constitute criminal offences such as injury (Article 204 of the Penal Code), assault (Article 208), intimidation (Article 222), compulsion (Article 223), or trespass (Article 130).

Civil Liability

Victims may bring claims for damages based on tort (Article 709 of the Civil Code), including claims for consolation money for emotional distress (Article 710).

Act on the Regulation of Stalking and Similar Conduct

In addition to criminal proceedings, the Public Safety Commission may issue prohibition orders and other similar administrative measures against stalking conduct (Article 5). A person who violates such orders may be subject to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to JPY2 million (Article 19(1)).

Criminal Liability

Assault, injury, compulsion, intimidation and trespass are all offences prosecutable without a complaint. Victims may file a damage report with the police or submit a criminal accusation.

Civil Liability

Victims may also bring civil damages' claims based on tort (Article 709 of the Civil Code), including claims for consolation money for emotional distress (Article 710). Courts commonly award compensation for emotional distress in the range of several hundred thousand yen to approximately JPY2 million, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the extent of the harm.

Criminal Proceedings

The statute of limitations for prosecution is ten years for injury offences and three years for other relevant offences (Article 250(2)(v) and (vi) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Civil Proceedings

For tort claims, the limitation period is three years from the time the victim becomes aware of both the damage and the perpetrator, and there is an absolute limitation period of 20 years from the time of the infringing act (Article 724 of the Civil Code).

Criminal Proceedings

Criminal trials are, in principle, open to the public. However, where there is a risk of harm to the victim’s reputation or peaceful life, measures such as redaction of identifying information in indictments (Article 256(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and shielding measures during trial (Article 157-2) may be permitted.

With respect to jurisdiction, although offences for which a fine is a possible punishment may fall within the jurisdiction of summary courts, the choice between a summary court and a district court is at the discretion of the public prosecutor. Jurisdiction lies with the court of the place of the crime or the defendant’s domicile.

Civil Proceedings

In civil proceedings, although disclosure of the parties’ names and addresses and access to court records are the general rule, the party anonymisation system (Chapter VIII, Article 133(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure) may be applied where disclosure would cause serious disruption to a person’s social life. Harassment cases are not excluded from this system.

Jurisdiction for damages' claims lies with the court of the defendant’s domicile (or, for a corporation, its principal place of business) or the court of the place of the tort (the place of the infringing act or the place where the damage occurred). The place of the tort includes not only the location where violent or threatening conduct occurred but also the place where the harm materialised or continued to be felt, such as the victim’s place of refuge or current residence. In practice, courts often recognise the victim’s post-evacuation residence as the place where the damage occurred.

Evidence typically includes medical certificates, police consultation records, records of domestic violence support organisations, documents relating to protection orders, and written statements by the victim. It is important to demonstrate in detail the nature of violence and the circumstances of the victim’s evacuation.

Court costs may be recovered in civil proceedings. In addition, attorneys’ fees may be included as part of recoverable damages in tort claims.

In Japan, data subjects may pursue civil remedies such as damages' claims based on tort. They may also exercise statutory rights under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Act No 57 of 2003; the APPI), including rights to request disclosure, correction or deletion, and suspension of use or cessation of provision.

The APPI is primarily an administrative regulatory framework that protects personal information by imposing obligations on personal information-handling business operators in order to prevent infringement of individuals’ rights and interests. It also provides for the aforementioned civil claims by data subjects.

APPI

Where a personal information-handling business operator violates its statutory obligations, or where a reportable data breach event (Article 26(1)) occurs, data subjects may request suspension of use or cessation of provision of their personal information (Article 35).

In addition, where a business operator violates its obligations under the APPI, the Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC) may issue guidance or advice (Article 147). Where a business operator violates certain specified obligations and the PPC considers it necessary to protect individuals’ rights and interests, it may issue a recommendation (Article 148). If the business operator fails, without justifiable grounds, to comply with the recommendation and there is an imminent risk of serious infringement of individuals’ rights and interests, the PPC may issue an order (Article 148(2)). In urgent cases where immediate action is required due to facts seriously infringing individuals’ rights and interests, the PPC may issue an emergency corrective order without first issuing a recommendation (Article 148(3)).

Failure to comply with such orders is subject to criminal penalties: imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to JPY1 million for the individual offender, and a fine of up to JPY100 million for the corporation (Article 178; Article 184).

At present, no administrative surcharge system has been introduced.

Civil Damages' Claims

Damages' claims are typically brought where personal information has been leaked. In practice, courts commonly award compensation in the range of approximately JPY5,000 to JPY50,000 per affected individual, depending on the categories of personal information that were leaked.

APPI

The APPI does not itself prescribe a limitation period for court actions. However, because requests for suspension of use and similar claims are civil in nature, the general prescription rules apply (Article 166 of the Civil Code). A claim becomes time-barred if not exercised within five years from the time the data subject becomes aware that the right may be exercised, or within ten years from the time the right becomes exercisable.

With respect to requests for suspension of use or cessation of provision, a business operator is not required to comply where implementation would involve excessive costs or would otherwise be difficult, provided that alternative measures necessary to protect the individual’s rights and interests are taken.

In addition, court proceedings may not be commenced unless either two weeks have elapsed since an out-of-court request was made, or unless the request has been refused (Article 39(1)).

Civil Damages' Claims

For damages' claims based on tort, the limitation period is three years from the time the victim becomes aware of both the damage and the perpetrator, and there is an absolute limitation period of 20 years from the time of the infringing act (Article 724 of the Civil Code).

Jurisdiction lies with the court of the defendant’s domicile, or, in the case of a corporation, its principal place of business (Article 4(1) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure). In addition, for damages' claims, jurisdiction may also lie with the court of the place of the tort, namely, the place of the infringing act or the place where the damage occurred.

Court costs may be recovered (Article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Attorneys’ fees may be recognised as part of recoverable damages in tort-based damages' claims. However, where a claim is brought solely under the APPI without an accompanying damages' claim, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable as court costs.

In Japan, the importance of self-regulation based on journalistic ethics is actively discussed. Examples include the Canon of Journalism of the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association (NSK), and the Broadcasting Ethics Basic Charter established by Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai (NHK), the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, and the Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association. Each media organisation establishes its own internal standards and undertakes initiatives based on these frameworks. In addition, many newspaper companies have established independent third-party committees to review problematic cases. In the broadcasting sector, the Broadcasting Act adopts a principle of respect for self-regulation, and a joint organisation established by NHK and commercial broadcasters, the Broadcasting Ethics & Programme Improvement Organisation (BPO), operates as a mechanism for both deterrence and correction.

The five most influential media organisations are: NHK; Yomiuri Shimbun; Asahi Shimbun; Nikkei (The Nikkei); and Mainichi Shimbun.

However, the internet has become an indispensable source of information. According to the 2025 White Paper on Information and Communications in Japan issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 73% of users obtain news primarily through a combination of portal sites, social media platforms and news' curation services.

In Japan, in order to avoid chilling effects on freedom of expression and reporting, there is no content-based legal regulation, including prior restraints. There is no specific legislation regulating newspapers or publishing.

Broadcasting, however, is subject to the Broadcasting Act. This statute primarily regulates the institutional and operational aspects of broadcasting services to ensure appropriate reception environments, rather than imposing content regulation.

With respect to online and social media platforms, large-scale specified telecommunications service providers may be required to take measures to prevent the transmission of infringing information under the Information Distribution Platform Act (IDPA) (see 1.6 Other Features of Privacy Actions).

In Japan, regulatory authorities do not provide a formal complaints-handling process for media-related matters.

In Japan, websites that store or host user-generated content are subject to a legal framework under the IDPA (see 1.6Other Features of Privacy Actions, 5.2 Regulatory Framework). This framework is designed to balance responses to allegedly unlawful content with users’ freedom of expression and other interests.

The Act contains safe-harbour provisions that limit liability for damages, both where a service provider fails to take measures to prevent the transmission of infringing information and where it does take such measures.

These safe-harbour provisions apply only to civil liability for damages, regardless of whether the claim is based on tort or breach of contract. They do not apply to injunction claims and do not affect criminal liability.

There are no specific legal mechanisms in Japan designed to prevent abusive or excessive litigation that may inhibit public interest journalism.

Japan does not have specific legislation designed to prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments in media-related cases.