Bangladesh Drafts Social Media Law With 24-Hour Removal Orders and Local Office Rules

Platforms face a day to remove content

Bangladesh is preparing a Social Media and Digital Intermediary Act, 2026 that would require platforms to remove content within 24 hours of receiving a government notice declaring it illegal. For material involving child sexual abuse or deepfake pornography, the proposed deadline would be 12 hours after a complaint or notice.

Platforms with at least 1 million registered monthly active users in Bangladesh would face additional obligations, including a local office, designated compliance staff and continuous contact with law enforcement. Their protection from legal responsibility for material posted by users would depend on meeting the law's requirements.

The proposal combines measures against sexual exploitation, impersonation and online harassment with powers to restrict speech concerning national security, public order and relations with foreign countries. Its central dispute is over who decides when a post crosses those boundaries, and how users can challenge that decision.

Amnesty International researcher Rihab Mahamur and Tech Global Institute Bangladesh head Fouzia Afroze have raised concerns about vague language, concentrated executive authority and the absence of a clear independent review process before removal. The draft also promises users explanations for removed content, moderation in Bengali and a system for appealing platform decisions.

Three legal initiatives, different powers

The proposed social media act is being developed under the leadership of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Some officials in the Information and Communication Technology Division were reportedly unaware of the initiative, pointing to gaps in coordination between government bodies whose responsibilities would touch the new system.

Bangladesh has also pursued amendments to telecommunications legislation and a revision of its cyber security law. Each initiative deals with online content, but their provisions belong to different proposals:

• July 28, 2025: The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications instructed the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, or BTRC, to prepare amendments to the Telecommunication Act, 2001.
• August 12, 2025: BTRC submitted its proposed amendments, including a new section 66-ka dealing with content and intermediary liability.
• 2026 proposal: The Social Media and Digital Intermediary Act would introduce platform duties, removal deadlines, local representation and conditional legal protection.
• Separate parliamentary announcement: Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said revisions would be issued as the Cyber Security Act, 2026, with a 24-hour removal requirement under consideration.

The prison terms and fines described in the telecommunications proposal therefore belong to that draft. The social media proposal focuses on a wider operating framework for platforms, while the home minister's announcement concerns changes to cyber security legislation.

What could trigger a removal order?

The social media draft would permit removal instructions for content considered threatening to Bangladesh's integrity, defence, security, sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign states or public order. Content violating existing laws, prohibited by a court or capable of provoking ethnic conflict would also fall within its scope.

Platforms would have to take reasonable steps against copyright infringement, impersonation, material involving child sexual abuse and the sharing of intimate images for revenge. Deepfake pornography involves fabricated sexual images or videos that use technology to make a person appear to participate in something they did not do.

Five executive bodies or government institutions, alongside courts, would be empowered to issue removal instructions. The proposed structure includes ministries and divisions, the cyber security authority and BTRC. A platform receiving an ordinary notice would have 24 hours to act, with the shorter 12-hour period applying to specified sexual abuse material.

The draft also contains exceptions for satire that is not obscene, constructive political criticism, dissent and reasoned analysis of state policy. Mahamur's concern is that terms such as constructive and reasoned leave authorities considerable room to decide which criticism receives protection.

For a person posting about government policy, the practical issue is whether officials apply a specific legal test or make a broad judgment about the tone and purpose of the criticism. Afroze has warned that concentrating removal powers in executive institutions, without clear independent supervision, could leave people with limited effective remedies.

Why platforms might remove more posts

Social media services host enormous amounts of material written or uploaded by users. Legal protection for intermediaries generally means that a platform can carry that material without automatically taking on the same responsibility as the person who created it, provided it meets specified duties.

Bangladesh's draft would make that protection conditional. A platform could lose it by failing to meet requirements, including removing illegal content after an official notice. That would make compliance decisions important to the company's own legal exposure, as well as to the visibility of a user's post.

Mahamur has also raised concerns about a requirement to act on a platform's own actual knowledge of content connected to illegal activity. If the connection to illegal activity is loosely defined, companies may decide that removing disputed material is the less risky choice.

A deadline measured in hours leaves limited time to examine language, context, satire or the accuracy of an accusation. The incentives could therefore extend beyond material officials specifically order removed, with platforms becoming more cautious about politically sensitive posts. That concern sits alongside the draft's objective of securing faster action for people facing abuse.

Local offices and routes for complaints

A service with at least 1 million registered monthly active users in Bangladesh would qualify as a significant platform under the draft. Those services would need a liaison office in the country and three designated roles: a chief compliance officer, a contact officer for law enforcement and a local grievance officer.

The compliance officer would oversee legal obligations. The law enforcement contact would provide a channel for official communications, while the grievance officer would receive and resolve complaints from users. Platforms would also need personnel available for continuous communication with law enforcement and implementation of government directions.

Users dissatisfied with a platform's complaint decision could appeal to a government formed Grievance Appellate Committee. They could also approach the committee if the platform failed to resolve a complaint within the required period. For someone trying to remove impersonation or abusive images, that would create a further route beyond the company's internal process.

The proposed system combines private platform decisions with government supervision. Afroze's concerns about independent oversight apply here too: an appeal body needs sufficient independence and effective remedies if it is to provide meaningful review of disputed decisions.

Explanations, Bengali moderation and AI labels

Platforms would be required to tell users why their content was removed. Bengali moderation is also proposed, making local language review part of the compliance framework. Understanding language and context matters when deciding whether a post contains a threat, a joke, political criticism or an allegation about a public figure.

Content generated using artificial intelligence would need labels. Such labels can tell viewers that an image, video or audio recording was created or altered by software, a relevant distinction when fabricated material resembles a real person speaking or acting.

The draft remains incomplete. Details about identifying AI material, assigning responsibility for labels, dealing with removed labels, the independence of appeals and publication of government removal orders are unresolved or unclear. No enactment date or next scheduled legislative hearing is given.

The user protections and the enforcement powers would operate together. A reason given after removal can help a person contest a decision, while independent review before removal serves a different purpose: checking whether the intervention is justified before the post disappears. Afroze has said the draft lacks a clear mechanism for that prior independent review.

A separate draft carries prison terms and large fines

BTRC's 2025 telecommunications amendment proposal would create section 66-ka, covering messages or content considered anti-national, seditious or capable of inciting hatred, division, unrest or fear. It would also cover content harmful to sovereignty, defence, foreign relations, public security, public order, the rule of law or economic interests.

The proposed maximum punishment is five years in prison, a fine of Tk 300 crore, or both. Tk 300 crore equals 3 billion taka. The clause would extend responsibility to intermediaries that engage in or help the prohibited conduct, and impose the same maximum punishment for failing to comply immediately with removal or blocking instructions.

BTRC would be able to direct a telecommunications provider or intermediary to block or remove content on written government instructions, without providing an explanation. The relevant government authority could be the Home Affairs Ministry, Defence Ministry or another ministry, depending on the subject.

The proposed section would make offences non-bailable, meaning release would require a court decision rather than being available as a right. Abu Nazam M Tanveer Hossain, principal at consultancy Stratagem and a telecommunications policy specialist, called for precise definitions, examples and mandatory judicial supervision before punishment.

Hossain said the clause could recreate problems associated with the former Digital Security Act:

risks reviving the spectre of the Digital Security Act

He also argued that the proposed financial penalty was excessive and should reflect the harm caused.

Industry warnings and the regulator's response

Shahed Alam, chief corporate and regulatory affairs officer at mobile operator Robi Axiata, has urged withdrawal of the telecommunications draft. He warned that the proposed non-bailable offence, large penalties and powers affecting digital services could restrict expression, discourage investment and slow innovation.

Alam's objection included the scope for action without advance justification. He said:

The authority can impose these measures without prior justification.

Alam urged the government to return to the Bangladesh Telecommunications Act, 2001 as the basis for amendments and pursue a transparent process involving affected groups. His concerns address the commercial environment as well as individual speech: companies deciding whether to invest must assess the penalties and obligations attached to operating in the country.

BTRC Chairman Maj Gen (retd) Md Emdad Ul Bari defended the proposal by saying its fines continued earlier legal provisions. He said the law's reach was being expanded from offences involving telecommunications networks to social media as technology changed.

Bari also said the text remained open to revision:

This is just a draft, and it will go through further scrutiny. It can be altered if the government and stakeholders deem it unnecessary.

The home minister's push for faster action

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed has separately told Parliament that the government is revising cyber security legislation to address rumours, misinformation, defamation and misleading images, videos and audio created using artificial intelligence. He said new definitions and punitive provisions would be introduced.

His comments followed an urgent public importance notice from lawmaker Helen Zerin Khan, who raised fake identities, coordinated bot networks, harassment of women and children, and organised misinformation campaigns against political figures. Bot networks are groups of automated accounts that can make a message appear more popular or widely supported than it really is.

Ahmed said existing law lacked provisions compelling international platforms such as Meta, Facebook's parent company, to remove content within a fixed period. He said the revised framework would allow law enforcement, the cyber security authority, BTRC and other empowered bodies to remove, block or restrict content.

The minister described the planned legislation as follows:

The law will be notified as the Cyber Security Act, 2026. Certain provisions will be amended.

His announcement places faster platform responses at the centre of another legal initiative. The difference for users will depend on the final definitions of prohibited content, which authorities can issue instructions and the procedures available for challenging them.

Why the Indian model matters

Bangladesh's proposed social media structure resembles India's Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Both frameworks use local compliance personnel, complaint handling and obligations to implement official instructions as tools for regulating large technology platforms.

The comparison helps explain the design choice. Rather than dealing only with individual posts or individual offenders, Bangladesh would make platforms maintain an ongoing administrative presence: local officers, complaints procedures and channels through which the government can demand action.

For victims of impersonation, harassment or sexual exploitation, faster responses and accessible complaints staff could make a concrete difference. For journalists, political campaigners and ordinary users discussing public affairs, the breadth of removal powers and access to independent review would determine how securely they can publish contentious material.

Bangladesh's proposals therefore join two questions in one regulatory system: how quickly platforms should respond to abuse, and how the state should exercise power over public discussion. The final wording on definitions, review and legal responsibility will determine how those duties work in practice.

Key Points

• The proposed Social Media and Digital Intermediary Act, 2026 sets a general removal deadline of 24 hours after an official notice.
• A 12-hour deadline would apply to specified material involving child sexual abuse or deepfake pornography.
• Platforms with at least 1 million registered monthly active users in Bangladesh would need local offices and designated officers.
• Platforms could lose protection from liability for user content if they fail to meet legal duties.
• A separate 2025 telecommunications draft proposes up to five years in prison, a Tk 300 crore fine, or both.
• Rights specialists seek clearer definitions and independent review, while the drafts also promise complaint procedures and explanations for users.