F5. Process for responding to third-party requests for content or account restriction

1. Does the company clearly disclose its process for responding to non-judicial government requests?
2. Does the company clearly disclose its process for responding to court orders?
3. Does the company clearly disclose its process for responding to government requests from foreign jurisdictions?
4. Does the company clearly disclose its process for responding to private requests?
5. Do the company’s explanations clearly disclose the legal basis under which it may comply with government requests?
6. Do the company’s explanations clearly disclose the basis under which it may comply with private requests?
7. Does the company clearly disclose that it carries out due diligence on government requests before deciding how to respond?
8. Does the company clearly disclose that it carries out due diligence on private requests before deciding how to respond?
9. Does the company commit to push back on inappropriate or overbroad requests made by governments?
10. Does the company commit to push back on inappropriate or overbroad private requests?
11. Does the company provide clear guidance or examples of implementation of its process of responding to government requests?
12. Does the company provide clear guidance or examples of implementation of its process of responding to private requests?

Companies often receive requests to remove, filter, or restrict access to content and accounts. These requests can come from government agencies or courts (both domestic and foreign), as well as from private entities (i.e. non-governmental and non-judicial entities). We expect companies to publicly disclose their process for responding to requests from governments and courts, as well as to private requests that come through some type of defined or organized process. Private requests can come through a process established by law, (e.g., requests made under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the European Right to be Forgotten ruling, etc.) or a self-regulatory arrangement (e.g., company agreements to block certain types of images).

This indicator evaluates whether the company clearly discloses how it responds to government and private requests to remove, filter, or restrict content or accounts. The company should disclose the legal reasons why it would remove content. In some cases, the law might prevent a company from disclosing information referenced in this indicator’s elements. RDR will document situations where this is the case, but a company will still lose points if it fails to meet all elements. This represents a situation where the law causes companies to be uncompetitive, and we encourage companies to advocate for laws that enable them to fully respect users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

Potential sources:

• Company transparency report
• Company law enforcement guidelines
• Company terms of service
• Company help or support center
• Company blog posts
• Company policy on copyright or intellectual property