Explore

Show in map
Court Decision

Google v. Mosley, TGI Paris

Google is ordered to take down and stop referencing in its Google image tool for a duration of 5 years, 9 photos of Max Mosley which had already been held a breach to his privacy. See also CIS Blog post
Court Decision

Bruno L. v. Google

Liability of Google on the ground of general civil liability for refusing to delete from its Google suggest tool suggestions such as “crook” or “sect” associated with the name of a person, after this person had asked it to stop making these suggestions and for failing to inform users more clearly about the functioning of its “Google suggest” tool.
Court Decision

Youtube v. SPPF, Paris Court of Appeal

holding Youtube eligible under the hosting safe harbor and not liable for the re-posting of content already flagged as infringing. Only the judicial authority has the power to impose on hosting service providers a duty to temporary and targeted surveillance in accordance with article 6-I-7 of the Law for confidence in digital economy (reversing TGI Paris, Apr. 28, 2011).
Court Decision

Matthieu S. v. Twitter, TGI Paris

Paris Court orders Twitter to provide personal identification information of fake Twitter profile, regardless of the fact that this information was hosted in the US.
Court Decision

Twitter v. UEJF, J’Accuse, MRAP, SOS Racisme and Licra, TGI Paris

Paris Court orders Twitter to (i) provide identification information of Twitter users who had created allegedly racist and anti-Semitic hashtags on the ground of French Civil Procedure regulation (legitimate reason to keep essential evidence) and (ii) implement simple alert system to flag this kind of content (a flagging system already existed but it was difficult to access and in English language only).
Court Decision

Cour de Cassation, Syndicat National des Producteurs de Music (SNEP) v. Google France

Google is liable for suggesting in its auto-suggest tool, words such as “Torrent”, “Megaupload” or “Rapidshare” when users type in names of artists or bands in the Google search bar, because it makes it possible to infringe copyright and/or neighboring rights by directing Internet’s searches towards services that offer illegal downloading. Google must implement the measures requested (stop associating determined keywords with the terms used in search) regardless of the possibility to easily circumvent these measures: as soon as they are aimed at contributing to remedy the situation by making it more difficult to find illegal sites, the measures do not have to be perfect.