Content posted by users on platforms, websites, pages and messaging groups has become a frequent source of disputes in Kuwait, whether as a criminal complaint or a claim for damages. The recurring question is simple to ask and harder to answer: who is responsible for an unlawful post — the author alone, the group administrator, or the owner of the site or platform? One point should be made clearly at the outset. Kuwait does not have a dedicated, standalone statute governing intermediary liability of the kind found in some comparative systems, and there is no established regime imposing a fixed notice-and-takedown deadline on platforms or administrators. These questions are therefore resolved by applying general rules: the Penal Code, the Cybercrime Law No. 63 of 2015, the electronic media rules, and the general principles of civil liability — all as assessed by the court on the facts of each case.
Who can be held responsible? General principles
Criminal liability is, as a matter of principle, personal: the person answerable is the one from whom the content came, namely its author or the person who carried out the act of publication. That responsibility does not transfer automatically to someone else merely because the post appeared in a space that person administers. Assessing the contribution of anyone other than the author is a factual question left to the trial court. The following are indicative principles rather than mechanical rules; the risk of an administrator or site owner being held responsible increases as his role comes closer to that of a participant in the publication, for example where he:
- wrote, drafted, edited or adapted the content himself;
- adopted the content as his own — by republishing it, pinning it, or presenting it with words of endorsement;
- instigated or requested the posting, or provided a space dedicated to disseminating such material;
- left the content up after being genuinely put on notice of it, such that a deliberate stance towards its continued publication can be inferred.
Conversely, simply being the administrator of a group or the owner of a site that accepts user comments does not, by itself, establish responsibility for everything written there — particularly where the person neither knew of the content nor adopted or contributed to it.
Offences that content may amount to
Content can exceed the limits of free expression and constitute a punishable offence. Described in general terms, the most commonly encountered categories include:
- Insult and defamation: attributing facts that injure a person's honour or standing, or directing abusive words at them — aggravated where this is done publicly by electronic means.
- Disclosing private life: publishing conversations, images or recordings relating to a person's private life without consent, one of the most frequent grounds in electronic cases.
- Threats and extortion: demanding something of value from the victim in exchange for not publishing, or for deleting, material.
- Impersonation and misuse of accounts: creating an account in the name of a person or entity, or unlawfully accessing another's account.
- Content touching on matters and public interests protected under their own specific provisions.
Because the precise legal characterisation shifts with wording, context and medium, identifying the potential offence requires review of the actual content rather than reliance on a general description.
Messaging-group administrators and removal after a complaint
We are often asked whether a group administrator must delete a post once the affected person complains. The candid answer is that this is an unsettled point: there is no clear express provision imposing a general duty on administrators to remove content within a defined period. The matter is left to the court's assessment in light of the circumstances — the nature and size of the group, whether it is public or private, the degree of the administrator's control, whether he had actual knowledge of the content, what he did once he knew, and whether his conduct amounted to adopting the content or acquiescing in its continued presence. The prudent practical course is therefore to treat any notice seriously and promptly and to document the action taken, because passivity after knowledge may be read unfavourably — without this implying that a fixed statutory deadline exists.
Civil liability, compensation and employer responsibility
Alongside the criminal route, the injured party may claim civil compensation for material and moral harm caused by the publication, based on the general principles of liability for wrongful acts: fault, damage, and a causal link between them. Compensation is assessed by reference to the gravity of the act, how widely it spread, and its effect on reputation or business.
Companies and employers may find their own responsibility raised for what their staff publish on the entity's official accounts, since a post made from a corporate account is on its face attributed to the entity and treated as issuing from its activity; any internal recourse against the employee at fault remains a separate matter. A written policy governing who may publish from company accounts is a sensible precaution.
Removal requests and identifying an anonymous account
In practice several routes are available, and they may be combined:
- Reporting to the platform through its internal complaint tools — fast, but governed by the platform's policies rather than Kuwaiti law.
- A criminal complaint before the competent authorities, where the Public Prosecution conducts the investigation and may order the technical enquiries it considers necessary; this is the route through which the person behind an anonymous account may be identified. Individuals cannot lawfully unmask an account holder themselves.
- Blocking requests through the competent regulatory authority, according to the procedures applied by that authority — an administrative route distinct in scope from court proceedings.
- A civil action seeking compensation and cessation of the harmful act.
Preserving evidence properly
Many complaints fail not because the content was lawful but because the evidence was not preserved correctly. We recommend:
- Capturing full screenshots showing the account name and link, the date and time, and the surrounding context — not an extract of the text alone.
- Saving the original link and a copy of the page, and screen-recording the navigation where possible.
- Having copies notarised before the competent authority, or obtaining a technical report where needed, to strengthen the evidential value.
- Avoiding messages to the publisher that could be read as a waiver or admission; a documented notice is enough if removal is to be requested.
A deleted post does not lose its significance: deletion does not erase an offence already committed by publication, and previously preserved evidence together with technical enquiries retain their evidential value.
Comments and reviews about businesses
Legitimate criticism is protected. Reviewing a service or purchase experience in objective terms, even negatively, is not in principle defamation. The line is crossed when the commentary moves from evaluating the service to asserting false facts, attacking individuals with abusive language, or exposing their private lives. The practical advice for businesses is to reply calmly and professionally, address the complaint where it is justified, retain documents that rebut the allegation, and avoid an exchange of insults that can turn the business from complainant into respondent.
Practical guidance
For administrators: publish clear posting rules, enable the available review and restriction tools, act on complaints immediately, and keep a log of what was removed, when and why. Do not adopt third-party content by republishing, pinning or endorsing it.
For those affected: preserve the evidence before taking any step, do not respond in kind, and define precisely what you want — removal, criminal prosecution, or compensation — because choosing the right route saves time and improves the prospects of success.
Conclusion
In the absence of a dedicated intermediary-liability statute in Kuwait, responsibility for user content rests on general rules and on the court's appraisal of each person's role in the publication. These are inherently factual questions whose outcomes vary with the circumstances and the evidence. This article is general information only; it is not legal advice and does not express an opinion on any particular case.
If you administer a page or group and have received a notice, or you have been harmed by a post affecting you or your business, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm will be glad to review your situation and identify the most suitable route for preserving evidence, seeking removal and pursuing your rights.
