Reporting illegal content (DSA notice and action)

Status: DRAFT — FOR LEGAL REVIEW
Version: 0.2
Date: 2026-10-18
Owner: Head of Trust & Safety (to be appointed)
Jurisdiction: Canada (operating company); EU users served under the DSA and GDPR; market neutral
Applicable law: Criminal Code of Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); for EU users, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), in particular Articles 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2021/784 (terrorist content online) and Directive 2011/93/EU (child sexual abuse)
EU legal representative: Aurora's EU legal representative under DSA Art. 13: [to be appointed]
Reviewed by counsel: [pending]
Next review: Prior to platform launch, then annually

This document is a draft prepared for review by qualified legal counsel. It is Aurora's notice-and-action procedure under DSA Art. 16 and forms part of the Content Moderation Policy ecosystem. It is also the procedure Aurora publishes to users under DSA Art. 14 (terms of service clarity obligations).

1. Scope

This procedure governs the submission, processing, and resolution of notices alleging that specific items of content on the Aurora Platform are illegal, within the meaning of Art. 3(h) DSA. "Illegal content" includes content that, as such or by reference to an activity, does not comply with Union law or the law of any Member State which is in compliance with Union law. Aurora accepts notices from anyone, anywhere, about any content on the Platform, and applies the same procedure to all of them; for EU users the procedure implements the DSA obligations described below, and content alleged to be illegal under the law of the place where the provider or the affected person is located is assessed against that law.

The procedure applies to:

• Provider profile text, photos, and videos.
• Public structured fields (services, rates, locations, availability).
• Member screening profiles, where the feature is available.
• Messages — only to the extent a participant submits a notice with relevant excerpts (messages are end-to-end encrypted; see Content Moderation Policy §3.3).
• Public-facing user display names and avatars.
• Aurora-authored editorial content (handled internally rather than via this procedure, but notices about such content are still actioned).

It does not govern internal complaint handling against moderation decisions — that is DSA Art. 20, covered in Section 9 below.

2. Who May Submit a Notice

Under DSA Art. 16(1), any individual or entity may submit a notice — they do not need to be a registered Aurora user or have standing in a traditional sense. Specifically:

• Any user of the Platform (provider, member, visitor).
• Any third party, including the affected person, their legal representative, relatives, or a lawyer.
• Trusted flaggers under DSA Art. 22 — see Section 10 for priority treatment.
• Authorities issuing formal orders — see separate process in the Law Enforcement Guidelines and DSA Art. 9.

3. How to Submit a Notice

Aurora accepts notices through electronic mechanisms that are user-friendly and allow submission of notices exclusively by electronic means (DSA Art. 16(1)):

1. In-product "Report" button — present on every profile, media item, message thread, and search result (for registered users).
2. Web form at auroramembers.com/report — accessible without an account.
3. Email to [email protected] — Aurora accepts notices by email as a fallback; the email template is provided on the /report page.
4. Trusted flagger channel — a dedicated API/endpoint for Art. 22 trusted flaggers.

Notices about child sexual abuse material (CSAM) can be sent via any of the above and, for child-safety organisations, via the trusted-flagger channel. Users can also report directly to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (Cybertip.ca) in Canada, to NCMEC in the US, or to their national INHOPE hotline; Aurora cooperates with all of them.

3.1 Required Fields — DSA Art. 16(2)

To be a valid notice giving rise to "actual knowledge" under Art. 6 DSA, a notice must contain all of the following:

• (a) A sufficiently substantiated explanation of the reasons why the individual or entity alleges the content to be illegal content.
• (b) A clear indication of the exact electronic location of that information — for example, the exact URL(s) of the content, or, where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content.
• (c) The name and email address of the individual or entity submitting the notice. This is not required where the notice concerns information considered to involve one of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2011/93/EU (child sexual abuse offences).
• (d) A statement confirming the bona fide belief of the individual or entity submitting the notice that the information and allegations contained therein are accurate and complete.

Aurora's reporting interface collects these fields explicitly. Notices that do not meet Art. 16(2) are acknowledged but treated as "information for review" rather than formal notices; Aurora still reviews them, but the timing obligations and "actual knowledge" effects of Art. 6/16 do not automatically apply.

4. Categories of Illegal Content

Aurora recognises the following categories when triaging notices. These map to the fields in the report form:

5. Processing Timeline

Aurora acts on notices "in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner" (DSA Art. 16(6)).

6. Decisions Aurora Can Take

Upon completing the assessment, Aurora may take one or more of the following actions:

• Remove the content (hard delete from the Platform and purge from CDN caches within 7 days).
• Restrict visibility — geo-block (e.g., hide for users in a specific Member State whose law prohibits it), demote in search, or hide from search index.
• Label the content with a contextual notice (e.g., "contested content").
• Require the user to modify the content within a stated period, failing which it is removed.
• Suspend the account — temporary or permanent, depending on severity and history.
• Refer to law enforcement — mandatory for CSAM, trafficking indicators, and imminent threats (see Content Moderation Policy §7).
• Leave the content in place — where it is not illegal and does not breach the AUP.

Aurora maintains an append-only audit log (moderation_events table) of every notice, assessment, and decision (see CLAUDE.md known sharp edges).

7. Statement of Reasons (DSA Art. 17)

Every decision that restricts (removes, demotes, suspends, terminates, demonetizes, restricts visibility or reach of) content or a user account is accompanied by a Statement of Reasons delivered to the affected user, unless Art. 17(3) exceptions apply (e.g., deceptive commercial content under Art. 17(3)).

The Statement of Reasons includes, as required by Art. 17(3):

1. Whether the decision entails removal, disabling, demotion, suspension, etc., and the territorial scope and duration where relevant.
2. The facts and circumstances relied upon, including where relevant whether the decision was taken based on a notice submitted under Art. 16 or on Aurora's own-initiative moderation.
3. Where applicable, information on the use of automated means in taking the decision, including whether the decision was taken on content detected or identified using automated means.
4. Where the decision concerns allegedly illegal content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations why the content is considered illegal on that ground.
5. Where the decision is based on alleged incompatibility with Aurora's terms and conditions, a reference to the contractual ground and explanations why the content is considered incompatible.
6. Clear and user-friendly information on the possibilities for redress — internal complaint (Art. 20), out-of-court dispute settlement (Art. 21), judicial redress.

Statements of Reasons are also submitted to the DSA Transparency Database maintained by the European Commission under Art. 24(5), in the standard format, excluding any personal data, without undue delay.

The notifier is also informed of the decision taken, together with information on the redress possibilities available (Art. 16(5)).

8. Counter-Notices and Reinstatement

Where a user whose content has been affected believes the decision was wrong, they may:

1. Submit an internal complaint under Art. 20 (Section 9 below).
2. Where the decision was based on a notice alleging copyright infringement, submit a counter-notice under the separate DMCA / Copyright procedure (dmca-copyright.md) — which interacts with this procedure.
3. Pursue out-of-court dispute settlement under Art. 21 (Section 9.2).
4. Seek judicial redress.

If Aurora upholds the complaint and reverses the decision, the content is restored (subject to cache TTLs) and a record is made in the audit log and the next transparency report.

9. Internal Complaint-Handling System (DSA Art. 20)

Aurora operates a free, accessible, and effective internal complaint-handling system.

9.1 Who Can Complain

• Users whose content has been removed, demoted, restricted, or otherwise affected by a moderation decision.
• Users whose account has been suspended or terminated.
• Notifiers whose notice was rejected.

Complaints must be submitted within 6 months of the decision (Art. 20(1)), via the in-product complaint form or at [email protected].

9.2 Timelines and Staff

• Complaints are handled by staff not involved in the original decision, with appropriate training.
• Median resolution target: 14 calendar days; complex matters up to 30 days, with notice to the complainant.
• Decisions are not taken solely on the basis of automated means (Art. 20(6)).
• If Aurora reverses its decision, the content / account is restored without undue delay.

9.3 Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement (Art. 21)

Where the complainant is not satisfied, Aurora recognises their right to refer the dispute to any certified out-of-court dispute settlement body listed with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where Aurora's EU legal representative under DSA Art. 13 ([to be appointed]) is established, or another competent Member State DSC. Aurora will:

• Engage with the selected certified body in good faith.
• Provide the information needed for the dispute.
• Bear the costs of the dispute settlement if the decision is in the user's favour (Art. 21(5)); the user bears their own costs if Aurora's decision is upheld, except where the body rules otherwise.
• Not condition the use of the Platform on a waiver of Art. 21 rights.

10. Trusted Flaggers (DSA Art. 22)

Aurora grants priority treatment to notices submitted by entities that have been awarded trusted flagger status by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where Aurora's EU legal representative under DSA Art. 13 ([to be appointed]) is established, or another competent DSC under Art. 22 DSA. Candidate organisations Aurora expects to work with include:

• The Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, La Strada International — human-trafficking expertise
• The Canadian Centre for Child Protection (Cybertip.ca), NCMEC, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) — child-safety expertise
• INHOPE member hotlines
• Specialist NCII organisations (e.g., Stop Non-Consensual Intimate Images / StopNCII.org)

10.1 Priority Handling

• Trusted flagger notices are processed in priority, without undue delay (Art. 22(1)).
• Aurora targets < 24-hour decision on trusted-flagger notices for illegal content, and < 1 hour for CSAM hashes or confirmed trafficking indicators.
• Trusted flaggers have a dedicated API / upload endpoint and point of contact.
• Aurora publishes, in its transparency report, the number of notices submitted by trusted flaggers, categorised by alleged illegality, and the action taken (Art. 22(3)).

10.2 Safeguards

• Aurora may suspend processing of notices from a trusted flagger if a significant number of notices are found to be insufficiently substantiated, inaccurate, or inadequate (Art. 22(6)), after giving the flagger the opportunity to be heard.
• Aurora reports such suspensions to the competent DSC.

11. Automated Detection

Aurora deploys automated detection tools to identify potentially illegal content proactively. These include:

• PhotoDNA hash matching against known CSAM hash databases. A hash match results in immediate automated takedown pending human review; the rationale is the zero-tolerance nature of CSAM, the legal duty to report, and the very low false-positive rate of cryptographic hash matching.
• Perceptual hashing across accounts to detect shared or stolen photos (an indicator of impersonation or trafficking).
• NSFW and category classifiers to flag content that may fall outside permitted categories.
• Text classifiers to detect minor-indicator language, trafficking typologies, spam, and scam patterns.

Automated systems (other than CSAM hash matching) do not make final moderation decisions. Every action that restricts a user is confirmed by a human reviewer. The use of automated means is disclosed in the Statement of Reasons (Art. 17(3)(c)) and reported in the transparency report.

Aurora documents classifier accuracy, error rates, and known failure modes; this documentation supports the Art. 15(1)(e) transparency obligation on accuracy of automated systems.

12. Records and Statistics

Aurora records, for each notice and decision:

• Timestamp of receipt and each subsequent step.
• Source of the notice (user, trusted flagger, Art. 9 order, Aurora's own initiative).
• Alleged illegality category.
• Content location and type.
• Action taken and territorial scope.
• Whether automated means were used.
• Whether a Statement of Reasons was issued and its contents.
• Outcome of any internal complaint or out-of-court settlement.

These records feed the quarterly transparency report under DSA Art. 15 and Art. 24 (see transparency-report-template.md).

13. Abuse of Notice Systems (Art. 23)

Aurora will, after issuing a prior warning, suspend for a reasonable period of time the processing of notices and complaints submitted by individuals or entities that frequently submit notices or complaints that are manifestly unfounded. Aurora assesses misuse on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

• The absolute number of manifestly unfounded notices/complaints.
• Their relative proportion to total submissions.
• The gravity of the misuse and the consequences.
• The user's apparent intention.

Suspensions and their reasons are communicated to the affected person and logged.

14. Interaction With Other Policies

• Content Moderation Policy — this procedure implements the notice-and-action elements of the Content Moderation Policy.
• DMCA / EU Copyright Takedown Procedure — copyright notices follow a closely related but separate procedure due to the specific requirements of Art. 17 DSM Directive and US law.
• Law Enforcement Guidelines — formal orders from authorities under Art. 9 DSA are processed through the Law Enforcement contact point, not this form.
• Privacy Policy — personal data submitted in a notice is processed under GDPR Art. 6(1)(c) and Art. 6(1)(f).

DRAFT — FOR LEGAL REVIEW. This procedure must be reviewed and approved by qualified legal counsel with DSA expertise before publication. Operational URLs, email addresses, and API endpoints are placeholders pending infrastructure setup.