X Corp. v. Masjoody, 2025 BCCA 89
In a significant cross-border cyberlibel decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to enforce a California forum selection clause contained in Twitter’s (now X Corp.) Terms of Service, allowing the plaintiff’s defamation claim to proceed in British Columbia.
The case arose from an alleged coordinated online campaign targeting the respondent, which was said to have caused serious reputational harm within British Columbia. The plaintiff alleged that X Corp. was not merely a passive host, but was complicit in allowing or facilitating the continued publication and amplification of defamatory content. X Corp. moved to stay the action, arguing that its click-through Terms of Service required all disputes to be litigated exclusively in California.
The Court of Appeal rejected that position. While reaffirming that forum selection clauses are generally entitled to deference, the Court held that enforcement is not automatic. Where there is strong cause to refuse enforcement—particularly where doing so would undermine access to justice or offend public policy—Canadian courts may retain jurisdiction. On the pleadings, the Court accepted that compelling the plaintiff to litigate in California would impose a substantial and unfair burden, especially where the alleged harm was suffered in British Columbia and engaged Canadian defamation law.
The decision underscores a growing judicial skepticism toward boilerplate online contracts in cases involving alleged misconduct by digital platforms themselves. It also signals that Canadian courts will closely scrutinize forum clauses where the defendant’s conduct is said to have contributed to domestic harm.
For U.S. counsel advising cross-border clients, the message is clear: forum selection clauses may not insulate technology companies from Canadian proceedings in cyberlibel cases. Canadian courts continue to prioritize access to justice and the real-world impact of online defamation over contractual formalities.