Due to the fact that there is not special law concerning liability of intermediaries on the Internet, the general provisions established in the Civil Code apply to liability of intermediaries. The Colombian legal system does not have notions of contributory or vicarious liability similar to those established in the USA due to its civil law heritage that has different principles concerning third parties liability and tort. The general principle governing third party liability is provided in Article 2341 of the Colombian Civil Code. Article 2341 establishes the following main principle: "anyone that causes harm to other, shall indemnify".
(prepared by Swiss Institute of Comparative Law for Council of Europe)
This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.
(prepared by Swiss Institute of Comparative Law for Council of Europe)
This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.
(prepared by Swiss Institute of Comparative Law for Council of Europe)
This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content 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)