Civil liability of companies for anonymous comments posted on their sites: a criterion of potential consequences of liability
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate a criterion of potential consequences of liability of an Internet portal for unlawful comments of its visitors and set certain general waymarks, which would apply to cases of this kind.
Research methodology – The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in four cases (Delfi AS v. Estonia, MTE & Index v. Hungary, Pihl v. Sweden and Tamiz v. the United Kingdom) on whether civil liability can be justified to the website operators for anonymous comments made on their portals that violate the right to privacy. One of the criteria of such evaluation was the possible negative consequences of the civil liability of these entities, but its content and meaning have not been thoroughly studied in the doctrine. Therefore the authors analyse the content of this criterion on the basis of a comparative method. Taking into account the legal context of this study, specific methods of legal interpretation are used in this article (such as, systemic, teleologic, histrorical).
Findings – Authors conclude that addressing the civil liability of website operators for damages caused by anonymous comments violating the right to privacy must consider not only the financial, and not only ad hoc, short- and long-term adverse effects of the website operators in general, but the impact of the ruling on the concept of free media and other property and non-material consequences for a democratic society as a whole.
Research limitations – This article deals with one criteria for the application of civil liability of website operators for the infringement of an individual’s right to privacy by anonymous comments, that is – the possible negative consequences of the civil liability of these entities. That is the continuation of the authors’ research on the topic of website operator’s liability for unlawful anonymous comments.
Practical implications – The research reveals that the consequences of applying the civil liability to the website operator are conditions for assessment of extent of the already existing civil liability; therefore, the criteria of the consequences that arose and / or could arise to website operator are not to be considered as factors justifying the application of civil liability, but rather as factors determining, i.e. extending or limiting, the extent of civil liability.
Originality/Value – The vacuum of a consistent concept of assessing the behavior of website operators in response to unlawful comments poses a threat not only to the sustainability of website operators as business or public interest entities, but also to the stability of the legal system as a whole. It is therefore important to disclose the content of elements of assessment of the necessity of restricting the freedom of expression of website operators in a democratic society, which are unregulated and formulated only in the case law of the ECtHR, and which have been applied in national courts for horizontal civil liability claims for anonymous comments. There are no previous research that would focus on these issues.
Keyword : Delfi AS v. Estonia, MTE & Index v. Hungary, Pihl v. Sweden, Tamiz v. the United Kingdom, website operator’ liability, liability for anonymous comments, unlawful comments, potential consequences of the civil liability
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Brunner, L. (2016). The liability of an online intermediary for third party content. The watchdog becomes the monitor: Intermediary liability after Delfi v Estonia. Human Rights Law Review, 16(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv048
Caddell, R. (2016a). The last post? Third party Internet liability and the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights: Delfi AS v Estonia revisited. Communications Law, 21(2), 49–52.
Caddell, R. (2016b). Third party Internet liability and the European Court of Human Rights. Communications Law, 21(3), 88–91.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2016). Official Journal of the European Union, 59, C 202, 389.
De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium. (1997). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 19983/92).
Delfi AS v. Estonia. (2013). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 64569/09).
Delfi AS v. Estonia. (2015). [GC]. European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 64569/09).
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1995). State Gazette, 40, 98710.
European Group on Tort Law. (2005). Principles of European Tort Law: Text and Commentary. Springer.
Frosio, G. F. (2017). The death of “No monitoring obligations”: A story of untameable monsters. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 8(3), 212. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hy7fk
Gasser, U., & Schulz, W. (2015). Governance of online intermediaries observations from a series of national case studies (Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-5). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2566364
Geiger, Ch., & Izyumenko, E. (2016). The role of human rights in copyright enforcement online: Elaborating a legal framework for website blocking. 32(1) American University International Law Review, 43. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2805572
Judgment of Klaipėda Regional Court. (2014, 27 February). Civil case no. 2A-142-538 / 2014.
Judgment of the Tallinn Court of Appeal. (2012, 21 February). Civil case no. 2-08-76058.
Judgment of the Tallinn Court of Appeal. (2013, 27 June). Civil case no. 2-10-46710.
Jurkevičius, V., & Šidlauskienė, J. (2018). Primary presumptions for website operator’s liability for offensive comments. In 10th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2018” (pp. 276–288). https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2018.31
Koziol, H. (Ed). (1998). Unification of Tort Law: Wrongfulness. Vol. 3. Kluwer Law International.
Koziol, H. (Ed.). (2015). Basic questions of tort law from a comparative perspective. Jan Sramek Verlag.
Lavi, M. (2018). Evil nudges. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 21(1).
Law on Public Information of the Republic of Lithuania. (1996). State Gazette, 71, 1706.
Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary. (2016). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 22947/13).
Martin, J. A., & Fargo, A. L. (2015). Anonymity as a legal right: Where and why it matters. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 16.
Max Rufus Mosley v. the United Kingdom. (2011). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 48009/08).
Meškauskaitė, L. (2015). Teisė į privatų gyvenimą. VĮ Registrų centras.
Norkūnas, A. (2013). Civilinės teisinės atsakomybės samprata. Lietuvos Respublikos civilinis kodeksas: pirmieji dešimt galiojimo metų. Mokslo studija. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.
Oster, J. (2015). Media freedom as a fundamental right. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316162736
Pappalardo, K. (2014). Duty and control in intermediary copyright liability: An Australian perspective. IP Theory, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15913-3_11
Payam Tamiz v. the United Kingdom. (2017). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 74742/14).
Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). (2009). Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group). Full Edition. C. Von Bar & E. Clive (Eds.). Munich: Sellier. European Law Publishers.
Rolf Anders Daniel Pihl v. Sweden. (2017). European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 74742/14).
Rustad, M. L., & Koenig, T. H. (2005a). Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America. Suffolk University Journal of High Technology Law, 5(13).
Rustad, M. L., & Koenig, T. H. (2005b). Rebooting Cybertort Law. Washington Law Review, 80.
Sang, Y., & Anderson, J. (2012). Bloggers’ libel liability: A comparative analysis of South Korea and the United States. UB Journal of Media Law & Ethics, 3(1/2), 63–85.
Sartor, G. (2017). Providers liability: From the ECommerce Directive to the Future. Study (European Union).
Šidlauskienė, J. (2017). The Lithuanian case-law after the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the cases of Delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete & Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, 5, 34–66.
Šidlauskienė, J., & Jurkevičius, V. (2017). Website operators’ liability for offensive comments: A comparative analysis of Delfi as v. Estonia and MTE & Index v. Hungary. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 10(2), 46–75. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2017-0012
Stalla-Bourdillon, S. (2017). Internet intermediaries as responsible actors? Why it is time to rethink the e-Commerce Directive as well. In M. Taddeo & L. Floridi (Eds.), Law, Governance and Technology Series: vol 31. Responsibilities of Online Service Providers (pp. 275–293). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_15
Thompson, M. (2016). Beyond gatekeeping: The normative responsibility of Internet intermediaries. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 18(4).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (2006). State Gazette, 68, 2497.
van der Sloot, B. (2015). Welcome to the Jungle: The liability of Internet intermediaries for privacy violations in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 6(211).
van der Sloot, B. (2016). The practical and theoretical problems with “Balancing”: Delfi, Coty and the redundancy of the human rights framework. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(3), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300304
Von Hannover v. Germany. (2012). [GC] European Court of Human Rights (Appeal no 40660/08 and 60641/08).
Weinert, E. (2016). MET v Hungary: The first European Court of Human Rights ruling on liability for user comments after Delfi AS v Estonia. Entertainment Law Review, 27(4), 135–139.