Court Rules on Ureru Net Advertising Company in Personal Information Disclosure Case
Does it say don’t redirect?
Did “Ureru Net Advertising Company” (now “Ureru Net Advertising Company Group, Inc.,” hereinafter “Ureru”) expose the personal information of Mr. A, one of the operators of the media outlet Suan, which criticized the company—or did it not?
Ureru claims that it complied with the court’s deletion order by removing references to Mr. A from its website. However, through a method called a redirect, the information remained accessible. Mr. A’s side judged this as noncompliance with the deletion obligation. Based on a provisional enforcement order, they petitioned the court for seizure of assets, seeking payment of penalties of 100,000 yen per day and a total exceeding 17 million yen.
For more details, please refer to the first part: “Aimed at Silencing Free Speech. The Muddy Court Battle Between TSE Growth-Listed ‘Ureru’ and the Web Media.”
In the latter part, both sides’ arguments regarding the “redirect” are presented.
The key points of Ureru’s claims in court are mainly two.
The first point is:
“The person who received instructions to implement the redirect from the CEO (editor’s note: Mr. Koichi Kato) was the executive officer of the operating company, the non-litigant ‘Ureru Net Advertising Co., Ltd.’ (editor’s note: real name omitted). In fact, the redirect was carried out on the website of ‘Ureru Net Advertising Co., Ltd.,’ meaning that the entity responsible for the redirect was the non-litigant company, not the plaintiff.”
Although the provisional injunction was issued to the parent company (“Ureru Net Advertising Company Group, Inc.”), the redirect was executed by the subsidiary, a separate legal entity (“Ureru Net Advertising Co., Ltd.”), so they argue they bear no responsibility.
The second point is:
“Even if the plaintiff had executed the redirect, this would not constitute a violation of the main order (editor’s note: the provisional injunction). (Omitted) The description in the enforcement document regarding this case—‘1. The obligor shall delete, for the posts listed in attached article catalog number 1, the parts enclosed in red lines in attachment 1, and for the posts listed in attached article catalog number 2, the parts enclosed in orange lines in attachment 1’—is explicit and uniform, and there is no mention whatsoever regarding re-posting or redirects after deletion.”
In other words, the court order only required deletion of specified content and did not explicitly prohibit redirects. Therefore, they argue, it does not constitute a violation of the order.
It contradicts his past words and actions
In response to Ureru’s claims, Mr. A’s side countered, calling them formalistic arguments and sophistry intended to evade responsibility.
First, regarding the claim that a different company carried it out, Mr. A’s side argued that this claim contradicts your past statements and actions.
“In the preservation objection case against the provisional injunction (editor’s note: objection to the provisional injunction) (omitted), the plaintiff (editor’s note: Ureru) itself submitted a notification of corporate name change on January 31, 2025. (Omitted) This fact alone demonstrates that the plaintiff acknowledged it had succeeded to the rights and obligations of the former company (the non-litigant company) and was the obligor under the provisional injunction.
If it were not the administrator of the website itself, it should have notified the court at that time. Failing to do so, and now asserting that it was a different company, is an act of bad faith, and the non-performance by a third party (editor’s note: the subsidiary) does not exempt it from enforcement under this case.” (From Mr. A’s preparatory statement)
In January 2025, Ureru transitioned to a holding company structure, changed its corporate name, and established a subsidiary to carry out business. Initially, the company informed the court that only the name has changed; the company subject to the deletion order is the same legal entity.
Later, however, it argued that the redirect was carried out by a separate subsidiary. Mr. A contends that this selective use of arguments is an act of bad faith to evade responsibility and is unacceptable in court.
Regarding Ureru’s argument that the order does not mention redirects, Mr. A countered with a substantive argument focusing on the purpose of the order:
“Compliance with the enforcement document (editor’s note: the provisional injunction ordering article deletion) means ensuring and maintaining that the specified content is inaccessible (deleted) when a general user accesses the URLs in question.
(Omitted) When a general user accessed the URLs listed in the enforcement document, they were automatically redirected to a domain (editor’s note: the preparatory statement specifies the address) containing exactly the same content as the enforcement document, and the content remained fully accessible. (Omitted) This cannot be considered compliance with the enforcement document.” (From Mr. A’s preparatory statement)
In other words, even if the pages were deleted formally, the fact that the same content remained accessible effectively violates the purpose of the deletion order, constituting non-compliance, Mr. A’s side argues.
Ureru’s response was:
Friday Digital sent a questionnaire to Ureru, asking the following two points:
1. Considering that the purpose of the provisional injunction was to eliminate the state in which Mr. A’s privacy rights were being violated, the redirect effectively maintained that state of violation. From the perspective of social norms, what is your company’s view on the appropriateness of this action?
2. Even if the redirect to a different website containing the same content was carried out by a subsidiary, wouldn’t this conflict with the group’s overall stance of respecting judicial decisions? From the standpoint of compliance expected of a listed company, what is your company’s opinion on this matter?
Ureru responded as follows:
“The matter is currently under litigation, and since there is a disagreement between the parties, we are awaiting a judicial ruling. Accordingly, we must refrain from providing any specific response, including our own view, regarding this matter. Our company intends to earnestly assert the legitimacy of our position in court. We appreciate your understanding.”
On the other hand, when asked for his view regarding the continued redirects, Mr. A responded:
“Despite the court recognizing the infringement of my personal rights, the same content remained accessible via an anonymous site using a domain with my real name, automatically redirecting users.
This constitutes a continuation of the substantive rights violation and is extremely regrettable. To prevent similar harm from recurring, I will continue to seek justice through appropriate judicial remedies and fair judgments.”
The question remains whether the court will accept the logic of the page was deleted, but the content is redirected. Its ruling could have significant implications for the future of online speech.