Explore

Plaintiff sought monetary relief from both the internet service provider (Entel) as well as the parent of the person that posted a defamatory content (see below Entel I). The Court recognized the lack of rules for internet content. General damages rules are to be applied. However, the action was rejected. The service provider is not liable under general rules as it could not control the uploaded content. Additionally, the natural person was held not liable as the alleged infringer was already of age.

Stating that liability for defamatory content - a false offering of sexual services by the minor daughter of plaintiff - may be exclusively casted upon the provider of the content, not the manager of the website or the provider of connection. This decision recognizes the lack of rules for internet content, but it also recognizes that only ex post control over content is possible or to be expected. Upon noticing “evidently” offensive content, providers should take measures to prevent further harm, but they are not liable for damages before that moment. The decision establishes, but does not explain, the principle of “freedom of the information that circulates on the internet”.

The Court accepted the liability of a discussion forum provider for user comments. Unknown users posted several libelous statements on the website. The discussion provider refused to take them down, arguing that it can not establish its illegal nature. The Court hold the provider liable for an injunction to remove some statements that it found libelous (“like swine”), but rejected to grant any non-material satisfaction in money against the provider. The Court did not question the inverted wording of the Czech hosting safe harbor and readily accepted liability after concluding that hosting safe harbor was lost due to the notice from the plaintiff. see also Martin Husovec, Brief Commentary on the Prolux Case, 3 Revue pro právo a technologie (2011)

(1) The court ruled that the news portal that enabled commenting news articles published at its websites did not act neutrally (the activities of the ISP were not merely technical, automatic and passive in nature) as required under Section 10 of the ISSA (Section 14 of the e-Commerce Directive) and therefore the news portal could not benefit from the exemption of liability. (2) The court found that the Supreme Court in the Delfi case had reached a similar conclusion than the European Court of Justice in the Google AdWords case (C-236/08 to C-238/08) meaning that if an enterprise is not providing a service that is of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature, the enterprise cannot be exempted from liability.

(1) The case arose when a popular news portal (Delfi) in Estonia published an article about the ferry connection with the islands in Estonia. The news portal enabled users to comment on news articles. Among the comments were 20 comments that according to the claimant, the majority shareholder of the ferry transport company concerned, infringed his personality rights. The claimant argued that the news portal is liable for the damage incurred. Although Delfi implemented pre-examination of comments (if comments included specific vulgar expressions, the comment was not published), this was seen as an ineffective measure. (2) The Supreme Court upheld previous judgments and reiterated that (i) Delfi is a provider of content services. As such, Delfi governs the content that is stored and should be distinguished from an...