The Court of Milan found Yahoo! liable for copyright infringement. Infringement supposedly occurred with the publication of fragments of television programs through the now deceased Yahoo! Video service. The Court stated that the hosting safe harbor of the E-Commerce Directive could not be applied where the service is not a mere passive hosting of users' data, but is instead an "active hosting".
Concluding that Rojadirecta “consciously and willfully” aided and abetted the infringement of the right to broadcasting sporting events because the links, which may in itself be legit, were integrated in a broader activity facilitating and contributing to the infringement of the exclusive rights of the rightholders. Rojadirecta had knowledge of the unlawfulness of its actions with the clear goal of commercially exploiting the broadcasted sporting events through the placement of advertisements.
The claimant asked the newspaper to remove the message herself posted on the board. She claimed she was not aware of the public nature of the board and she deemed her post reviling sensitive data about her health. The Garante intimated to the newspaper to remove the claimant post. The newspaper initially failed to remove the post which was later deleted after further requests. The newspaper was responsible for the payment of the proceeding costs (about 500 Euros)
The claimant requested to force Facebook to remove of a “tag” from a Facebook photo able to identify her and her sexual orientation. The Garante rejected the complaint because the law does not apply if (a) the profile data processing was carried out only for personal use (b) there is not “diffusion”: the profile was “closed” and therefore there was not diffusion to the public (c) the claimant can autonomously remove the tag.
Endorsing a principle upon which the judiciary is entrusted with the power of ordering the intermediaries to provide a material aid to prevent further copyright infringement by blocking access to websites which are found guilty of the crime provided under Art 173-ter (2) a-bis). The court may order the preliminary seizure of the website through which the operator contributes to the criminal activity of disseminating copyrighted works on the Internet, without authorization. At the same time, the court may require that the ISPs block access to the site in order to debar the illegal dissemination of these works.
The claimant was seeking to remove an article concerning an investigation about him dated 1993. The claimant was later found innocent in connection with the investigation described in the article. The articles were still available online. The Privacy Authority rejected the complaint against Google for lack of jurisdiction because the “data processing” through cache copies does not take place in Italy nor in any European country.