Rethinking Shevill. Conceptualising the EU private international law of Internet torts against personality rights

Abstract

Neither EU nor Member States’ legislators or courts have to date found satisfying answers to the legal challenges of transnational violations of personality rights, such as reputation or privacy, in cyberspace. These challenges involve in particular the interpretation of EU private international law rules governing jurisdiction. Due to the Internet's ubiquitous character, applying the ECJ's Shevill doctrine from 1995 to transnational violations of personality rights in cyberspace would lead to limitless jurisdiction, thereby causing the risk of severe chilling effects on online publications. If behaving in a prudent and precautionary manner, website operators would have to adjust to the standards of the most restrictive jurisdiction.

In its decision eDate Advertising and Martinez v MGN (Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10), the CJEU amended the Shevill doctrine by establishing a ‘centre of interests’ criterion. The article will argue that although the introduction of the ‘centre of interests’ test is to be appreciated, it is insufficient to merely amend Shevill; rather, the ‘centre of interests’ criterion should replace the existing Shevill ‘mosaic principle’.

Keywords:

• jurisdiction
• centre of interests
• Shevill

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the participants of the SLS conference (Cyberlaw Section) in Cambridge 2011, particularly Faye Fangfei Wang, the participants of the University of Melbourne lunch seminar in September 2011, and Ivo Bach and Michael Schillig for their invaluable comments. Any errors and omissions are the author's own.

Notes

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 on the requests for a preliminary ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in the case of eDate Advertising (Case C-509/09) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris in the case of Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd. (Case C-161/10).

Cf. Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private international law and the internet, p. 7. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

For the French perspective, see Article 9 of the French Civil Code; see Kayser, P. 1995. La Protection de la Vie Privée par le Droit, 3rd ed. Paris: Economica-Presses universitaires d'Aix-Marseille; Picard, E. 1999. The right to privacy in French law. In Protecting privacy, ed. Markesinis, B. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49; Steiner, E. 2009. The New President, his Wife and the Media: Pushing Away the Limits of Privacy Law's Protection in France? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 13, no. 1. For Germany, see Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 10 May 1957, Case I ZR 234/55; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 20 May 1958, Case VI ZR 104/57. See also van Dam, C. 2006. European Tort Law, para. 705-1. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Brüggemeier, G. 2010. Personality Rights in European Tort Law, eds G. Brüggemeier, A. C. Ciacchi, P. O'Callaghan. 5 et seq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Engle, E. 2005. London Law Review 215, 234; Kuipers, J.-J. 2011. Towards a European Approach in the Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights. German Law Journal 8, 1681.

See, for example, Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 [66]; Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53; van Dam, C. 2006. European Tort Law, para 705-4; Smartt, U. 2011. Media & Entertainment Law p. 25. London and New York: Routledge. However, see Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 [15] (Lord Nicholls): ‘this tort, however labelled…’, but also [133] (Baroness Hale): ‘That case indicates that our law cannot, even if it wanted to, develop a general tort of invasion of privacy.’

ECtHR Karakó v Hungary, 28.4.2009, no 39311/05, § 18; Petrina c Roumanie, 14.10.2008, no 78060/01, § 19; Pfeifer v Austria, 15.11.2007, no 12556/03, § 35; Chauvy and Others v France, 29.6.2004, no 64915/01, § 70; Radio France and Others v France, 30.3.2004, no 53984/00, § 31; Cumpănă and Mazăre v Romania [GC], 17.12.2004, no 33348/96, § 91; White v Sweden, 19.9.2006, no 42435/02, § 26; see also Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers [2002] 1 Weekly Law Reports (WLR) 2034, House of the Lords (HL) [63]; Fenwick, H., and Phillipson, G. 2006. Media freedom under the Human Rights Act 1069. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ECtHR Burghartz v Switzerland, 22.2.1994, no 16213/90, § 24.

ECtHR Schüssel v Austria, 21.2.2002, no 42409/98, § 2.

ECtHR X and Y v the Netherlands, 26.3.1985, no 8978/80, § 22.

ECtHR Peck v the United Kingdom, 28.1.2003, no 44647/98, § 57.

ECtHR Botta v Italy, 24.2.1998, no 21439/93, § 32; Von Hannover v Germany (No 1), 24.6.2004, no 59320/00, § 50.

Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ 2007 L 199/40.

See, for example, MainStrat, Comparative study on the situation in the 27 Member States as regards the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, JLS/2007/C4/028. Final Report, 2009, p. 36 et seq.; Working Document of the European Parliament on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) of 23.05.2011 (Rapporteur: Diana Wallis), p. 6.

See Stephens v Avery and others [1989] Ch. 449; Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62; Shelley Films Ltd. v Rex Features Ltd. [1994] EMLR 134; Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] 1 All ER 908; A v B plc [2002] 2 All ER 545; OBG Ltd. and others v Allan and others [2007] UKHL 21 (the Douglas case); Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1373; Deakin, S. Johnston, A., and Markesinis, B. 2008. Markesinis and Deakin's tort law, 6th ed. 840–841. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Fenwick, H. and Phillipson, G. 2006. Media freedom under the Human Rights Act, 728–734. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 A.C. 1 [255]; Smartt, U. 2011. Media & Entertainment Law 29. London and New York: Routledge.

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12/1. When referring to the Brussels I Regulation, this article means to refer to the Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Convention) that applies to Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland at the same time.

According to Article 60(1) Brussels I Regulation, a legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business.

Article 1(3) Brussels I Regulation. The Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Convention) continues to apply to Denmark; see also the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2005 L 299/62.

Case 21/76 [1976] ECR 1735 [24-25].

Case C-68/93 Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-415 [61].

Case C-68/93 Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-415 [61].

[2000] 1 WLR 1004 (HL).

[2002] HCA 56 [48] (High Court of Australia).

[2004] EWHC 2422 (QB) [2], [19].

[2004] EWHC 168 [15] (QB), confirmed by [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 (CA).

Coester-Waltjen, D. 1999. Wege zur Globalisierung des Rechts ed R. Geimer 175, 179. Munich: Beck; Sujecki, B. 2011. Persönlichkeitsverletzungen über das Internet und gerichtliche Zuständigkeit. Kommunikation & Recht, 315, 316 Fn. 18.

See, for example, Mankowski, P. 2007. Brussels I Regulation, eds. U. Magnus and P. Mankowski. Art 5 para. 208. Munich: Sellier - European Law Publishers.

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [38]; Hogan, G. 1995. European Law Review 471.

See from German literature Pichler, R. 2006. Handbuch Multimediarecht, eds. T. Hoeren and U. Sieber, 15th supp. para 25.178. Munich: Beck-Verlag; Spickhoff, A. 2008. BeckOK EGBGB, eds. H.G. Bamberger and H. Roth, 18th ed., Art. 40 para. 56. Munich: Beck-Verlag.

Cf. Sutter, G. 2009. Defamation. In Media law and practice, eds. D. Goldberg, G. Sutter and I. Walden, 373, 388–389. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

See from German case-law and scholarship Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 10 May 1957, Case I ZR 234/55; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 19 December 1995, Case VI ZR 15/95 – Caroline III; Sprau, H. 2010. Palandt. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 69th ed. § 823 para. 112. Munich: Beck-Verlag; Brox, H., and Walker, W.-D. 2010. Besonderes Schuldrecht, 34th ed. § 41 para. 23. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag; Pfeiffer, T., and Weller, M. 2008. Recht der elektronischen Medien, eds. G. Spindler and F. Schuster, EGBGB Art. 40 para. 4. Munich: Beck-Verlag.

Cf. Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 19 December 1995, Case Az. VI ZR 15/95 [15] – Caroline III; for internet defamations, see Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia); King v Lewis [2004] EWHC 168 (QB); Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWHC 2422 (QB).

Dickinson, A. 2008. The Rome II Regulation, para 4.73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_celebrity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena.

Cf. Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 [39].

See Recitals 11 and 12 Brussels I Regulation; Case 189/87 Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst and Co. and others [1988] ECR 5565 [19]; Case C-26/97 Handte v TMCS [1992] ECR I-3967; Case C-168/02 Kronhofer [2004] ECR I-6009 [14].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [56]; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [17]; Smith, G.J.H. 2007. Internet law and regulation, 4th ed. para. 6-031. London: Sweet & Maxwell; Maier, B. 2010. How has the Law attempted to tackle the borderless nature of the Internet? International Journal of Law and Information Technology 142, 150.

Mensching, C. 2010. Limitless or Limited International Internet Jurisdiction within the European Union? Entertainment Law Review. 281, 284; Kuipers, J.-J. 2011. Towards a European Approach in the Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights. German Law Journal 8: 1681, 1686.

Smith, G.J.H. 2007. Internet law and regulation, 4th ed., para. 4-006. London: Sweet & Maxwell; Murray, A. 2010. Information Technology Law 139. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Sutter, G. 2009. Media law and practice, eds. D. Goldberg, G. Sutter, and I. Walden, 373, 391. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The rule was first applied in Duke of Brunswick v Hamer [1849] 14 QB 185; for internet cases, see Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [1999] EMLR 542; Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1805; Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004; King v Lewis [2004] EWHC 168 (QB). In Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 and 2) v UK [2009] Application Nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, the ECtHR held that the application of the multiple publication rule to Internet archives does not constitute a breach of Article 10 ECHR.

See Section 577A Restatement (Second) of Torts (1976); The rule was originally formulated in Wolfson v Syracuse Newspapers Inc (1938) 279 NY 716, and applied to Internet cases in Firth v State of New York (2002) NY Int 88.

Ministry of Justice, Draft Defamation Bill, Consultation Paper CP3/11, March 2011.

Barendt, E. 2005-2006. Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases Penn St. L. Rev. 110: 727, 733; see Compuserve Inc v. Patterson 89F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996).

Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private international law and the internet, p. 291–292. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004 (Lord Steyn); Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 [133] (Kirby J.); Barendt, E. 2005–2006. Jurisdiction in Internet Libel Cases Penn St. L. Rev. 110: 727, 734; Smith, G. 2007. Here, There or Everywhere? Cross-border Liability on the Internet. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 41.

See Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Reference for a preliminary ruling, made by decision of 6 July 2009, declared inadmissible by the Court on 20 November 2009, Case C 278/09.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [19]; Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private international law and the internet 324 et seq. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

See Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 75.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [19]; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 10 November 2009, Case VI ZR 217/08 [16]; Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [50].

See Smith, G. 2007. Internet law and regulation, 4th edn. para. 6-055. London: Sweet & Maxwell; Kohl, U. 2007. Jurisdiction and the internet, 24–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

See Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 13 October 2004, file no. I ZR 163/02 – ‘Hotel Maritime’; see also from the UK Euromarket Designs Ltd v Peters Ltd [2001] F.S.R. 288 (Jacob J).

Calder v Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984); Young v New Haven Advocate 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002); Revell v Lidov 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).

On the interpretation of this provision, see Joined Cases C 585/08 and C 144/09 Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof [2010].

King v Lewis [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 (CA) [34]. However, it should be noted that ‘targeting’ and ‘intention’ are not identical concepts; see Smith, G. 2007 Internet law and regulation, 4th ed., para. 6-053. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [18]; Edwards, L. 2004. The Scotsman, the Greek, the Mauritian Company and the Internet: Where on Earth do Things Happen in Cyberspace? Edin. L.R. 99, 109.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [20]; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 10 November 2009, Case VI ZR 217/08 [21].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10.

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [58]. A-G Cruz Villalón's opinion is not officially available in English. The French version names it ‘centre de gravité du conflit’, the German ‘Schwerpunkt des Konflikts’, and the original Spanish version ‘centro de gravedad del conflict’.

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [48].

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [20].

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [20]; see also Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 13 October 2004, Case I ZR 163/02, p. 7 – ‘Hotel Maritime’; Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 12 December 2000, Case 1 StR 184/00 – ‘Auschwitz denial’.

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [21-22].

Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [24].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [55 et seq.]

The Bundesgerichtshof further asked whether the E-commerce Directive lays down a conflict of laws rule. This question will be addressed briefly at the end of this article.

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [58]. The French version says: ‘[L]e lieu du ‘centre de gravité du conflit’ serait celui où une juridiction peut statuer dans les conditions les plus favorables sur un conflit entre la liberté d'information et le droit à l'image.'

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [58].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [57], [66].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [64]. See also Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 2 March 2010, Case VI ZR 23/09 [20]; Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 [154]; Harrods Ltd v Dow Jones [2003] EWHC 1162. [32 et seq].

Cf. Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [64].

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [65].

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [49].

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [50].

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [50].

Cf. Garnett, R., and Richardson, M. 2009. Libel Tourism or Just Redress? Reconciling the (English) Right to Reputation with the (American) Right to Free Speech in Cross-border Libel Cases Journal of Private International Law 5: 471, 484.

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [57].

Auten v Auten, 308 N. Y. 155, 160 (1954); Babcock v Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 479 (1963); see also Barber Co. v Hughes, 223 Ind. 570, 586 (1945); Jansson v Swedish Amer. Line, 185 F. 2d 212, 218-219 (1950); Estate of Knippel, 7 Wis.2d 335, 343-345 (1959); Kievit v Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N. J. 475, 491-493 (1960); Zogg v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 F. 2d 861 (2d Cir.) (1960); Haag v Barnes, 9 N.Y.2d 554 (1961); Dym v Gordon, 16 N.Y.2d 120, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463, 209 N.E.2d 792 (1965); Tooker v Lopez, 24 N.Y.2d 569, 301 N.Y.S.2d 519, 249 N.E.2d 394 (1969); Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 335 (1972).

Boys v Chaplin [1971] A.C. 356; see also Church of Scientology of California v Commissioner of Police [1976] 120 S.J. 690 (CA); Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA [1995] 1 A.C. 190 (PC); Church of Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2000] Ch. 403 (CA); Grupo Torras SA v Al-Sabah [2001] C.L.C. 221 (CA); Ennstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ. 916, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3059; Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqui Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19; Re T&N Ltd [2005] EWHC 2990 (Ch.).

Barrick Gold Corporation v Blanchard & Co [2003] O.J. No. 5817 (SCJ) [53]. See also Paulsson v Cooper [2009] CanLII 38795 (ON SC).

In German: ‘Sitz des Rechtsverhältnisses’ (von Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, 1849, p. 27-28, 108).

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [52]; Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [54].

Forum (non) conveniens is applicable where jurisdiction is established according to English domestic law, that is, in cases where the defendant is not domiciled in an EU Member State or an EFTA State. If the defendant is physically present (though not domiciled) in England, he has to be served with a claim form according to the methods provided by rules 6.3 et seq. of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, upon application of the defendant, courts have discretion to stay actions on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine. If the defendant is not physically present in England, rules 6.36 and 6.37 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) authorize courts to allow service of a claim form on the defendant abroad. According to rule 6.37, courts may grant permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction if the claimant refers to a ground in paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B, if the claim has a reasonable prospect of success, and if England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim (rule 6.37(3)). Similar to the forum non conveniens doctrine, courts enjoy considerable discretion under this rule, the criterion for the exercise of which is that of forum conveniens.

See The Atlantic Star [1974] A.C. 436; MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd. [1978] A.C. 795, 812; The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398, 411; Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460; Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1328. For the application of forum non conveniens to cyberspace cases, see Harrods Ltd v Dow Jones [2003] EWHC 1162; King v Lewis [2004] EWHC 168 (QB); Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWHC 2422 (QB); Dow Jones v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (CA).

Fawcett, J., and Carruthers, J.M. 2008. Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law, 14th ed. p. 428. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Briggs, A. 2008. The conflict of laws, 2nd ed. p. 99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fawcett, J., and Carruthers, J.M. 2008. Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law, 14th ed. p. 399. Oxford: Oxford University Press. For an application of the forum conveniens doctrine in breach of confidence cases, see Ashton Investments Ltd & Anor v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) & Ors. [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm). For a defamation case, see Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1004, HL.

[1987] AC 460.

[1984] A.C. 398, 415.

Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; however, see also the critical remarks of Kirby J, Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia) [157] (Kirby J).

Collins, M. 2005. The law of defamation and the internet, 2nd ed., para. 26.33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Case C-281/02 [2005] ECR I-1383; for a detailed analysis, see Kruger, T. 2008. Civil jurisdiction rules of the EU and their impact on third states, paras 5.55, 564 et seq. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Fawcett, J., and Carruthers, J.M. 2008. Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law, 14th ed. p. 323. Oxford: Oxford University Press. It has been readily accepted that English courts are precluded from applying the forum non conveniens doctrine in cases where the alternative forum would have been a court of another Member State; see Grupo Torras v Al-Sabah [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 374; Lafi v Meriden [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 51; Mahme Trust Reg v Lloyds TSB Bank [2004] 2 Lloyd's Rep 637.

Stone, P. 2010. EU private international law, 2nd ed., 55–56. Cheltenham: Elgar European Law.

See, for example, Justice Eady's reasoning in King v Lewis [2004] EWHC 168 (QB) [24] – [27] and in Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWHC 2422 (QB) [24]; Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia) [134] (Kirby J).

Joined Cases C-509/10 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd [2011], decision of 25.10.2011 [52].

See Kohl, U. 2007. Jurisdiction and the internet, 24–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Opinion of Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of 29 March 2011, Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 [53]; see also Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia) [125] (Kirby J); Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private international law and the internet, 48–49. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

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), OJ 2000 L 178/1.

Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. 2, 14^th ed. 2006, para. 35–161.

Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private international law and the internet, 59, 63 et seq. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.