Cover and ANYCOLOR both put their harassment stance in writing

The setup

COVER Corp. and ANYCOLOR Inc., the companies behind hololive production and NIJISANJI respectively, have each published standing statements about protecting the people who perform as their talents from harassment and privacy violations. COVER's Basic Policy on Customer Harassment and ANYCOLOR's Sustainability disclosures each address this from a different angle: one as a customer-conduct policy, the other as part of governance reporting to investors. Neither document is examined here for what it says about any specific individual; both are read only for their stated company-level commitments, as retrieved on 16 September 2026.

What the documents show

COVER's policy defines Customer Harassment using the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's framework and lists prohibited conduct including unauthorized photography, audio recording, or video recording, and/or the unauthorized publication of such content directed at talent, staff or partners. It states the company may take measures such as blocking, reporting, or requesting the ban of the relevant account on video streaming platforms, and commits to providing appropriate mental health care and other support to affected personnel. ANYCOLOR's sustainability disclosure describes an Anti-Harassment and Defamation Response Team and states the company has established a process to report on action for acts in violation of privacy rights involving Livers, its term for official streamers, alongside an anti-defamation task force formed jointly with streaming-platform operators and other creator agencies. ANYCOLOR further discloses governance metrics, including whistleblowing case counts, in the same document.

The craft

For a talent or manager inside either agency, these documents describe an escalation path that exists independently of a fan's or a creator's own effort to police harassment informally: COVER's policy authorises the company itself to act against an offending account, and ANYCOLOR's cross-platform task force is described as coordinating action with the platforms directly, rather than leaving enforcement solely to a single service's individual reporting tools. Neither document, as retrieved, provides a public-facing incident log a fan or outside researcher could use to verify how often these processes have actually been triggered.

Keeping the creator in control

That a major agency puts a protective commitment in writing, with specific mechanisms named rather than a general promise, is meaningful precisely because it creates a standard the company can be held to later, even without disclosing any case-level detail. This is an editorial reading: a written policy naming unauthorized recording, publication and privacy-rights violations as company concerns gives a talent a documented basis to expect a response, distinct from and in addition to whatever action an individual platform might take on its own.

• Does the concern involve unauthorized recording, publication or a privacy-rights violation the company's own policy names directly?
• Is the appropriate channel the company's own reporting process, the platform's, or both together?
• Has either company published a more recent version of these statements since 16 September 2026?

Both companies' own documents describe a protective stance built from concrete mechanisms rather than a vague assurance, and reading those documents directly, rather than a fan-community characterisation of what the agency would do, is the only way to know what has actually been committed to in writing.