78 (c) the Minister has reason to believe the account is an inauthentic online account or is controlled by a bot; and (d) the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Account Restriction Direction. Clause 41 provides for the service of an Account Restriction Direction. It may be served on the internet intermediary to whom it is issued by a prescribed means or on a person appointed to accept service on its behalf. Clause 42 provides that non-compliance with an Account Restriction Direction is an offence. It is not a defence to a charge that — (a) the accused has a duty under any law, contract or rule of professional conduct that prevents or restricts compliance with the Direction; or (b) the accused has applied for the cancellation or variation of the Direction or has appealed to the High Court against the Direction. However, the clause confers immunity on the internet intermediary against liability for doing or omitting to do any act with reasonable care and in good faith for the purpose of complying with an Account Restriction Direction. Clause 43 enables the Minister to direct the IMDA to order an internet access service provider to take steps to disable access by end-users in Singapore to an online location. The Minister may so direct if — (a) an Account Restriction Direction is not complied with; (b) the false statement of fact concerned was or is being communicated in Singapore on the online location, or the coordinated inauthentic behaviour concerned took place or is taking place on the online location; (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 have used or are using the services of the internet access service provider to access that online location. Clause 44 provides for appeals to the High Court against an Account Restriction Direction by the prescribed internet intermediary to whom the Direction is issued, or the person who is the holder or controller of the specified online account. It sets out the grounds on which the Direction may be set aside. The Direction remains in effect despite an appeal against it. However, the High Court may stay the Direction if the internet intermediary who appealed against the Direction proves on a prima facie basis that it is technically impossible to comply with the Direction.