Page:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019.pdf/49

Rh :(c) the internet intermediary has control over access by end-users in any place to that online location; and
 * (d) the Minister is satisfied that one or more end-users in Singapore have used or are using the services of an internet access service provider to access that online location.

(2) The Minister may direct the IMDA to order the internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end-users in Singapore to the online location (called in this section an access blocking order), and the IMDA must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order.

(3) An internet access service provider that does not comply with an access blocking order under subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 for each day during any part of which that order is not fully complied with, up to a total of $500,000 for each offence.

(4) No civil or criminal liability is incurred by an internet access service provider or an officer, employee or agent of such provider, for anything done or omitted to be done with reasonable care and in good faith in complying with an access blocking order.

Appeals to High Court

44.—(1) The following persons may appeal to the High Court against an Account Restriction Direction:
 * (a) the prescribed internet intermediary to whom the Direction is issued;
 * (b) the holder of the specified online account or any other person with control over the specified online account.

(2) No appeal may be made to the High Court by any person unless the person has first applied to the Minister mentioned in section 46 to vary or cancel the Account Restriction Direction under that section, and the Minister refused the application whether in whole or in part.

(3) An appeal may only be made to the High Court within such period as may be prescribed by Rules of Court.