The liability of online intermediaries under European Union law

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj303154.2023-8-9.1-43

Keywords:

Internet Service Providers, Illicit Content, Injunctions, Safe Harbour, Online Platforms

Abstract

This research explores the complex and multifaceted issue of online intermediary liability. It illuminates the challenges arising from the absence of uniform regulations and the need for a collaborative system between online intermediaries and rightsholders. Specifically, the article scrutinizes the liability of online intermediaries under European Union law for violations of legal interests in online content. It strives to balance intermediary liability frameworks and fair competition, drawing attention to the relationship between specific provisions and the concurrent regime outlined in the e-Commerce Directive. Moreover, the article evaluates the consistency of liability frameworks for online intermediaries and their compliance with market functioning rules under the Trade Secrets and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directives. Furthermore, the article consults the consequences of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which holds online user-generated content platforms directly responsible for infringing content. And, unlike the original draft, the final version of this directive does not impose general monitoring obligations. Nevertheless, online intermediaries may need to implement filtering measures to avoid liability for unauthorized communication of copyright-protected works to the public. The writing also considers the impact of a prior legal framework, and the Digital Service Act established to address the issue of online intermediaries being held liable for any illegal information disseminated through their platforms. The research underscores the innovative features of the Digital Services Act, acknowledging the challenges of creating a practical legal framework striving to avoid conflicts with relevant laws. Therefore, this paper sheds light on the complex nature of online intermediary liability to the EU approach accordingly.

Author Biographies

Daria Bulgakova, Uppsala University

Visiting Scholar, Researcher

Sintija Deruma, BA School of Business and Finance

Director of MBA on Cybersecurity management

References

  1. Angelopoulos, C. (2017). On Online Platforms and the Commission's New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, SSRN, pp. 1-47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2947800
  2. Anon(2018)CreatinganeffectiveFinTechIPstrategy.ManagingIntellectual Property.
  3. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) on TripAdvisory, Decision PS9345, paras 87–9 (It.), 19 December 2014; Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (TAR) Lazio, Section I, Case no. 9355 (It.), 13 July 2015 in Diritto dellʼInformazione e dellʼInformatica 494 (It.); Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) Berlin, in MultiMedia und Recht 601 (Ger.), 8 April 2016.
  4. Cauffman, C., & Goanta, C. (2021). A New Order: The Digital Services Act and Consumer Protection. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 12(4) pp. 758–774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2021.8.
  5. Christey, S. (2002). Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process draft- christey-wysopalvuln-disclosure-00.txt. The Internet Society. Retrieved from: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-christey-wysopal-vuln-disclosure- 00 [Accessed 25 February 2023].
  6. Chiarella, M. (2023). Digital markets act (dma) and digital services act (dsa): new rules for the eu digital environment. Athens Journal of Law (AJL), 9(1) pp. 33-58.
  7. Colangelo, G., & Maggiolino, M. (2018). ISPs’ copyright liability in the EU digital single market strategy. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(2) pp. 142–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay005.
  8. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online, C/2018/1177, OJ L 63, 6 March 2018.
  9. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-236/08, Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and others, ECLI:EU:C:2010:159, 23 March 2010.
  10. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-324/09, L’Ore ́al SA and others v eBay International AG and others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:474, 12 July 2011.
  11. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771, 24 November 2011.
  12. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-360/10, SABAM v Netlog NV, ECLI:EU:C:2012:85, 16 February 2012.
  13. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, 27 March 2014.
  14. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited, ECLI:EU: C:2019:821, 3 October 2019.
  15. Court of Justice of the European Union, Joined Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18, YouTube and Cyando, ECLI:EU: C:2021:503, 22 June 2021.
  16. Desai, J. (2010). Service level agreements a legal and practical guide (1st edition). IT Governance Pub.
  17. Dinwoodie, G.B. (2017). A Comparative Analysis of the Secondary Liability of Online Service Providers. In Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham., pp. 1-72. DOI: https://doi- org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_1.
  18. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, particularly electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce'), OJ L 178, 2000.
  19. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 2001.
  20. Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L195/16, 2004.
  21. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 2005.
  22. Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use, and disclosure, OJ L 157, 2016.
  23. Directive 2019/790/EU of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L130/92, 2019.
  24. Directive (EU) (2020)/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, OJ L 409, 2020.
  25. European Commission, Case AT.39740, Google Search (Shopping), 27 June 2017.
  26. European Commission, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Cybersecurity strategy of the European Union: An open, safe and secure cyberspace, No. JOIN (2013) 1. Brussels, 2013.
  27. European Commission, The Memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the sale of counterfeit goods on the internet is a voluntary agreement facilitated by the European Commission to prevent offers of counterfeit goods from appearing in online marketplaces, Ares(2016)3934515, Brussels, 21 June 2016.
  28. Farrand, B. (2018). Combatting physical threats posed via digital means: the European Commission’s developing approach to the sale of counterfeit goods on the Internet. European Politics and Society (Abingdon, England), 19(3) pp. 338–354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2018.1430721
  29. Fletcher, A. (2021). Market Investigations for Digital Platforms: Panacea or Complement? Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 12(1) pp. 44–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpaa078.
  30. Genç-Gelgeç, B. (2022). Regulating Digital Platforms: Will the DSA Correct Its Predecessor’s Deficiencies?Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, 18 (1) pp. 25–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3935/cyelp.18.2022.485.
  31. Holcombe, R. (2015). Political Capitalism. Cato Journal, 35(1) p. 41.
  32. Huhta, E. (2019).Copyrights, Online Intermediaries and the EU: SaveYourInternet? : Platform Liability in Light of Article 17 of the Directive of Copyright in Digital Single Market. Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen, pp. 1-77.
  33. Ķinis, U. (2018). From Responsible Disclosure Policy (RDP) towards State Regulated Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Procedure (hereinafter – RVDP): The Latvian approach. The Computer Law and Security Report, 34(3), pp. 508–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.11.003.
  34. Laux, J., Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2021). Neutralizing online behavioural advertising: Algorithmic targeting with market power as an unfair commercial practice. Common Market Law Review, 58(Issue 3) pp. 719–750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2021048.
  35. Lindsay, D. (2017). Website blocking injunctions to prevent copyright infringements: proportionality and effectiveness. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 40 (4) pp. 1507–1538.
  36. Lucas-Schloetter, A. (2017). Transfer of Value Provisions of The Draft Copyright Directive (Recitals 38, 39 and article 13), pp. 1-22.
  37. Matt Malone. (2021). On the (data) breach of confidence.Alberta Law Review, 58(4) pp. 945–955.
  38. Moscon, V. (2020). Free Circulation of Information and Online Intermediaries – Replacing One “Value Gap” with Another. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,51(8) pp. 977–982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00982-3.
  39. Moscon, V., & Hilty, R. M. (2020). Digital Markets, Rules of Conduct, and Liability of Online Intermediaries—Analysis of Two Case Studies: Unfair Commercial Practices and Trade Secrets Infringement. In Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability. Oxford University Press, pp. 421–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.22.
  40. Mostert, F. (2020). Intermediary Liability and Online Trade Mark Infringement: Emerging International Common Approaches. In Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability. Oxford University Press, pp. 369– 380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.19.
  41. Niebel, R., de Martinis, L., & Clark, B. (2018). The EU Trade Secrets Directive: all change for trade secret protection in Europe? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice,13(6) pp. 445–457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpx227.
  42. Ohly, A. (2018). The broad concept of “communication to the public” in recent CJEU judgments and the liability of intermediaries: primary, secondary or unitary liability? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13(8), 664– 675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy083.
  43. Peukert, A., Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., & Quintais, J. (2022). European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal. IIC, 53(3) pp. 358–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01154-1.
  44. Rahman, M. T., Rahman, M. S., Wang, H., Tajik, S., Khalil, W., Farahmandi, F., Forte, D., Asadizanjani, N., & Tehranipoor, M. (2020). Defense-in-depth: A recipe for logic locking to prevail. Integration (Amsterdam), 72, pp. 39–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vlsi.2019.12.007.
  45. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, OJ L 277, 2022.
  46. Sagar, S., & Hoffmann, T. (2021). Intermediary Liability in the EU Digital Common Market – from the E-Commerce Directive to the Digital Services Act. IDP: Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/IDP.V0I34.387691.
  47. Schovsbo, J., Minssen, T., & Riis, T. (2020).The harmonization and protection of trade secrets in the EU: an appraisal of the EU directive (J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen, & T. Riis, Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  48. Stalla-Bourdillon, S. (2017). Internet Intermediaries as Responsible Actors? Why It Is Time to Rethink the E-Commerce Directive as Well. In Taddeo, M., Floridi, L. (eds) The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 31. Springer, Cham, pp. 275-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_15.
  49. Tang, M., Alazab, M., & Luo, Y. (2019). Big Data for Cybersecurity: Vulnerability Disclosure Trends and Dependencies. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 5(3), pp. 317–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2017.2723570
  50. Tommasi, S. (2021). The Liability of Internet Service Providers in the Proposed Digital Services Act. European Review of Private Law, 29(Issue 6) pp. 925–944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/ERPL2021048.
  51. Trallero Ocaña, T. (2021). The Notion of Secrecy A Balanced Approach in the Light of the Trade Secrets Directive, pp. 5202.
  52. Quintais, J. P., & Schwemer, S. F. (2022). The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special Is Copyright? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13 (2) pp. 191–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.1.
  53. Walden, I., & Hörnle, J. (2001). E-commerce law and practice in Europe. Woodhead Publishing Limited.
  54. Yong Sun, Wenan Tan, Ler Li, Guangzhen Lu, & Anqiong Tang. (2013). SLA detective control model for workflow composition of cloud services. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), pp. 165–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2013.6580957.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-30

How to Cite

Bulgakova, D., & Deruma, S. (2023). The liability of online intermediaries under European Union law. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (8-9), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj303154.2023-8-9.1-43

Issue

No. 8-9 (2023): Kyiv-Mohyla Law & Politics Journal

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Daria Bulgakova, Sintija Deruma

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.