C-63
Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)
Would have established Digital Safety Commission with platform duties for seven harmful content categories including content inducing children to harm themselves. Required 24-hour CSAM takedown.
Jurisdiction
Canada
CA
Enacted
Unknown
Effective
Unknown
Enforcement
Not specified
Died on Order Paper — Parliament prorogued Jan 2025
Harms Addressed
Who Must Comply
Safety Provisions
- • Would have created: Digital Safety Commission
- • Would have covered: child exploitation, non-consensual intimate images, extremism, content inducing self-harm in children
- • 24-hour takedown for CSAM and non-consensual intimate images
Quick Facts
- Binding
- No
- Mental Health Focus
- Yes
- Child Safety Focus
- Yes
- Algorithmic Scope
- No
Why It Matters
Would have been Canada's comprehensive online safety law. 'Content inducing children to harm themselves' directly addressed self-harm.
Recent Developments
Died Jan 2025. Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act, Sep 2025) covers hate speech Criminal Code provisions only—does NOT include Digital Safety Commission or platform duties. Comprehensive online platform regulation being developed separately.
Cite This
APA
Canada. (n.d.). Online Harms Act (Bill C-63). Retrieved from https://nope.net/regs/ca-c63
BibTeX
@misc{ca_c63,
title = {Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)},
author = {Canada},
year = {n.d.},
url = {https://nope.net/regs/ca-c63}
} Related Regulations
AU Online Safety Act
Grants eSafety Commissioner powers to issue removal notices with 24-hour compliance. Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE) formalize baseline safety governance requirements.
UK OSA
One of the most comprehensive platform content moderation regimes globally. Creates specific duties around suicide, self-harm, and eating disorder content for children with 'highly effective' age assurance requirements.
Malaysia OSA
Requires licensed platforms to implement content moderation systems, child-specific safeguards, and submit Online Safety Plans. Nine categories of harmful content regulated.
AIDA
Would have regulated high-impact AI systems with potential penalties up to $25M or 5% global revenue. Part of Bill C-27 which died when Parliament ended.
CA SB243
First US law specifically regulating companion chatbots. Uses capabilities-based definition (not intent-based). Requires evidence-based suicide detection, crisis referrals, and published protocols. Two-tier regime: baseline duties for all users, enhanced protections for known minors. Private right of action with $1,000 per violation.
NY GBL Art. 47
Requires AI companion chatbot operators to implement protocols addressing suicidal ideation and self-harm, plus periodic disclosures and reminders to users. Uses three-part CONJUNCTIVE definition (all three criteria must be met). No private right of action—AG enforcement only.