Duty of care + Standards _ CU

Diensteanbieter, die von Nutzern bereitgestellte Informationen speichern, wie die Verfügungsbeklagte, müssen gemäß Erwägungsgrund 48 der ECRL außerdem die nach vernünftigem Ermessen von ihnen zu erwartende und in innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften niedergelegter Sorgfaltspflicht anwenden, um bestimmte Arten rechtswidriger Tätigkeiten aufzudecken und zu verhindern.

sondern auch solche Inhalte als „eigene Inhalte“ gewertet werden, die sich der Diensteanbieter zu eigen gemacht hat.

Danach muss anhand der Umstände des Einzelfalls unter Berücksichtigung und Abwägung aller betroffenen Interessen und relevanten rechtlichen Wertungen bestimmt werden, welche Maßnahmen zumutbar sind. Zu diesen Umständen gehören Funktionen und Aufgabenstellung des angebotenen Dienstes, Risiko und Anzahl möglicher Rechtsverletzungen sowie die Eigenverantwortung des Verletzten, der wirtschaftliche Vorteil in Gestalt von Provisionen aus Rechtsverletzungen durch Dritte, die Werbung für mögliche rechtswidrige Aktivitäten, Erleichterungen von Rechtsverletzungen durch zur Verfügungstellung von Hilfsmitteln sowie Software, der wirtschaftliche Aufwand von Prüfmaßnahmen sowie die Effektivität grundsätzlich möglicher Prüf- und Sicherungsmaßnahmen auch im Hinblick auf Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung einer möglichen Vielzahl gleichartiger Verletzungen der Rechte in Bezug auf andere

The commercial importance of ISS providers is recognised in Recital 2 of the Directive which notes the significant employment opportunities and stimulation of economic growth and investment in innovation from the development of electronic commerce. The purpose of the exemption from monitoring is to make the provision of the service practicable and to facilitate the opportunities for commercial activity. The quantities of information described by the learned trial judge at paragraph [19] of his judgment explain why such a provision is considered necessary. Although the 2002 Regulations do not contain a corresponding provision they need to be interpreted with the monitoring provision in mind.

Given the quantities of information generated the legislative steer is that monitoring is not an option

he judge concluded that the existence of the XY litigation was itself sufficient to fix Facebook with actual knowledge of unlawful disclosure of information on Predators 2 or awareness of facts and circumstances from which it would have been apparent that the publication of the information constituted misuse of private information. In our view such a liability could only arise if Facebook was subject to a monitoring obligation

Thus, the Court considers that the applicant company was in a position to assess the risks related to its activities and that it must have been able to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences which these could entail. It therefore concludes that the interference in issue was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention.

The Court has found that persons carrying on a professional activity, who are used to having to proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation, can on this account be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails

Thus, the Court notes that the applicant company cannot be said to have wholly neglected its duty to avoid causing harm to third parties. Nevertheless, and more importantly, the automatic word-based filter used by the applicant company failed to filter out odious hate speech and speech inciting violence posted by readers and thus limited its ability to expeditiously remove the offending comments

[19] The Order of the Court will incorporate provision for liberty to apply. By this mechanism the Plaintiff, if necessary and if so advised, will be able to seek further relief from the Court if there is any recurrence of the offending publication. Of course, in such eventuality, it will be open to Facebook, acting responsibly and in accordance with the principles and themes clearly expressed in this judgment, to proactively take the necessary removal and closure steps.

[20] I refuse the Plaintiff's application for the wider form of interim injunction sought by him. This was to the effect that Facebook be required to monitor the offending webpage in order to prevent republication of the offensive material. In this respect, I prefer the argument of Mr Hopkins that such an order would lack the requisite precision, could impose a disproportionate burden and, further, would potentially require excessive supervision by the Court. See Cooperative Insurance v Argyll [1997] 3AL ER 297, pages 303 – 304, per Lord Hoffman. See also Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 24 (Fourth Edition Reissue), paragraph 849. The propriety of granting this discrete remedy will, of course, be revisited at the substantive trial, against the backcloth of a fuller evidential matrix, which should include details of how this social networking site actually operates from day to day.

. In e-commerce in particular, market surveillance authorities have great difficulty tracing non-compliant products imported into the Union and identifying the responsible entity within their jurisdiction.

In its 2017 work programme 4 , the Commission announced an initiative to strengthen product compliance and enforcement Union harmonisation legislation on products, as part of the 'Goods Package'. The initiative is to address the increasing amount of non-compliant products on the Union market while offering incentives to boost regulatory compliance and ensuring fair and equal treatment that will benefit of businesses and citizens.

The development of e-commerce is also due to a great extent to the proliferation of information society service providers, normally through platforms and for remuneration, which offer intermediary services by storing third party content, but without exercising any control over such content, thus not acting on behalf of an economic operator. Removal of content regarding non-compliant products or where it is not feasible blocking access to non-compliant products offered through their services should be without prejudice to the rules laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 55 . In particular, no general obligation should be imposed on service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor should a general obligation be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. Furthermore, hosting service providers should not be held liable as long as they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and are not aware of the facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent.

New responsibilities arise from these changes.

Greater transparency will disclose whether further regulation is required and make it better targeted, providing specific remedies for clearly identified ills.

If Facebook and others must account in detail to an electoral commission or data protection authority for micro-targeting or “dark” ads, are forbidden from deleting certain relevant data, and must submit to algorithm audits, they will forced to foresee and to try to solve some of the problems which they have been addressing so slowly

On 19 September, Google and the Association to Combat Audiovisual Piracy (Association de Lutte contre la Piraterie Audiovisuelle - “ALPA”) signed a partnership agreement aimed at effectively reinforcing copyright protection for the on-line exploitation of audiovisual works.

under the auspices of the National Centre for the Cnema (Centre National du Cinéma - “the CNC”

ey are shockingly expensive – YouTube’s ContentID had cost Google $60 million as of several years ago – so only incumbents can afford them. Start-ups forced to build them won’t be able to afford it, or will build lousy ones with high error rates. Filters address symptoms and leave underlying problems to fester – like, in the case of radical Islamist material, the brutal conflict in Syria, global refugee crisis, and marginalization of Muslim immigrants to the US and Europe. All these problems make filters incredibly hard to justify without some great demonstrated upside – but no one has demonstrated such a thing.

The DMCA moves literally billions of disputes about online speech out of courts and into the hands of private parties.

That allocative choice was reasonable in 1998, and it remains reasonable in 2016.