Intermediary Service Providers’ Liability Exemptions: Where Can We Draw the Line?
The role of e-services has rapidly developed in recent years. Within these developments, the role of Internet service provider has changed from substance provider to neutral platform provider. The knowledge and control of the information available has changed from total control to no control at all. In many or we can even say in most of cases, intermediary service providers (ISPs) are not aware of information available on their service platform and therefore cannot be held responsible in the case of the breach of any rights regarding substance of information. This article analyzes the conditions on which a service provider can expect the liability exceptions to be applied. The interpretation of liability exceptions does not differ only in Member States but differ in high courts of Europe, namely in European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Comparative analyses of the court reasoning show that the present legislation is too general and gives too much room for interpretation. Liability exemptions should not be applicable only on grounds of neutrality. The author believes that notice and take down principle should be implemented as a ground for exempting the liability. This article focuses on need for common approach in European level as in present situation neither ISP nor data subjects can find effective remedy to protect their interests.
KeywordsService Provider Personal Data Electronic Commerce Internet Service Provider Advocate General
Book, Multiple Authors/Editors
- Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything (p. 19). New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
- Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.Google Scholar
- Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.Google Scholar
- Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations.Google Scholar
- E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’).Google Scholar
- Gallardo Claudio Ruiz, & Gálvez J. Carlos Lara, Liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and the exercise of freedom of expression in Latin America. Available at http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf.
- Viola de Azevedo Cunha, Mario, Martin, Luisa, Sarator, Giovanni, EUI Working Paper Law 2011/011. Department of Law, Peer-to-peer privacy violations and ISP Liability: Data protection in the User.Google Scholar
- Article 10: Right to freedom of expression.Google Scholar
- Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 158.Google Scholar
- First Report on the application of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0702:FIN:EN:PDF.
- European Court of Justice no. C-131/12 paragraph 113.Google Scholar
- European Court of Justice, Case C-324/09.Google Scholar
- European Court of Justice, Case C-324/09: paragraph 123 of the judgment.Google Scholar
- Judgement in Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08.Google Scholar
- Judgement of the Court In Case C-70/10.Google Scholar
- Opinion of Attorney General Jääskinen in Case C-131/12 paragraph 3.Google Scholar
- Opinion of Attorney General Jääskinen in Case C-324/09.Google Scholar