Making intermediary Internet service providers participate in the regulatory process through tort law: A comparative analysis

Abstract

A decade after the adoption of the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on one side of the Atlantic and the European Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce on the other side, one could have expected the role of intermediary Internet service providers (IISPs) to become clearer as regards their contribution to Internet regulation and, in particular, speech regulation. Truly, at the end of the 1990s ‘self-regulation against tort law immunities’ seemed to be the appropriate path to follow in order to subsidize the Information Technology and Technology industry, especially in systems where free speech is often a superseding value. Yet, such a trade-off has progressively appeared inappropriate from the perspective of victims, namely because of the growth of IISPs' regulatory capacities. This has become even more apparent with the emergence of web 2.0 applications. However, judges have not always drawn their inspiration from the originality of the regulatory models underlying the interventions of their respective legislators. This is true both within the USA and in France. This paper thus seeks to highlight the ways that the formalism of tort law has been ‘instrumentalized’ by the judiciary to further a particular paradigm of speech regulation in cyberspace, despite the legislative recognition of alternative paradigms.

Keywords:

• internet service providers
• tort
• regulation

Notes

L. Rapp, ‘L'avenir de la régulation – réflexions libres autour d'un concept-clé’, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel, 17 (2006): 51–55.

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1995).

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 340 F.Supp.2d 1077, (C.D.Cal. 2004) (provider of transitory network communications); Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 108 Wash. App. 454 (Washington Court of Appeal 2001); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (US District Court, District of Columbia 1998); Stoner v. eBay, Inc., 2000 WL 1705637 (Cal. Super. 2000); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (Court of Appeal 4th District, Division 1, California 2002) (hosting providers); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F. 3d 1018, 1021–1022 (Court of Appeal, 9th Cir. 2003); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33, 59 (Supreme Court of California 2006) (webmasters); Grace v. eBay Inc., 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 192, (Court of Appeal, Second District, California 2004) (obiter dictum) (users of individual computers).

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.1997) (Zeran); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (US District Court, District of Columbia 1998).

See e.g. Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (Supreme Court of California 2006) (defamation); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1119 (Court of Appeal, 9th Cir. 2003) (invasion of privacy, misappropriation of right of publicity, and negligence); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (Court of Appeal 4th District, Division 1, California 2002) (unfair competition); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 2007) certiorari denied by 128 S.Ct. 709 (U.S. 2007) (unfair competition and misleading advertising); Novak v. Overture Services, Inc., 309 F.Supp.2d 446 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (tortious interference with prospective economic advantage); Doe v. Bates, 2006 WL 3813758 (E.D. Tex., 2006) (violations of federal child pornography laws); Doe v. SexSearch.com, 502 F.Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio, 2007) (common law of contract, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, violation of consumer law and failure to warn); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D.Tex. Feb 13, 2007) affirmed by 2008 WL 20680664 (5th cir. 2008) (negligence, gross negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation); Chicago Lawyers' Comm. for Civ. Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. Ill. 2006) affirmed by 519 F.3d 666 (C.A.7, 2008) (Craiglist) (violation of the federal Fair Housing Act). This is true even after the emergence of web 2.0 applications. See Doe v. Bates, 2006 WL 3813758 (E.D.Tex. 2006); Doe v. SexSearch.com, 502 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2007); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D.Tex. 2007); Universal Communications Systems v. Lycos, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3946 (1st Cir. 2007).

See in particular Perfect 10, Inc v. CCBill, LLC 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.(Cal.) 2007): ‘In the absence of a definition from Congress, we construe the term “intellectual property” to mean “federal intellectual property”’. Compare with Universal Communication System, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 422–423 (1st Cir. 2007): ‘[Plaintiff]'s remaining claim against [Defendant] was brought under Florida trademark law, alleging dilution of the “UCSY” trade name under Fla. Stat. §495.151. Claims based on intellectual property laws are not subject to Section 230 immunity’.

C. Butler, ‘Plotting the Return of an Ancient Tort to Cyberspace: Towards a New Federal Standard of Responsibility for Defamation for Internet Service Providers’, Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 6 (2000): 247–272; R.W. King, ‘Online Defamation: Bringing the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in Line with Sound Public Policy’, Duke Law & Technology Review (2003): 24–34; B.C. McManus, ‘Rethinking Defamation Liability for Internet Service Providers’, Suffolk University Law Review (2001): 647–669; C.J. Ottenweller, ‘Cyberbullying: The Interactive Playground Cries for a Clarifying of the Communications Decency Act’, Valparaiso University Law Review 41 (2007): 1285–1334; S.K. Patel, ‘Immunizing Internet Service Providers from Third-party Internet Defamation Claims: How Far Should Courts Go?’, Vanderbilt Law Review 55 (2002): 647–691; E. Posner and D. Lichtman, ‘Holding Internet Service Providers Accountable’, Supreme Court Economic Review 14 (2006): 221-259; D.R. Sheridan, ‘Zeran v. AOL and the Effect of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act upon Liability for Defamation on the Internet’, Albany Law Review 61 (1997): 147–179; K. Siver, ‘Good Samaritans in Cyberspace’, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 23 (1997): 1–45.

CoStar Group Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 688, 702, 703 (D.Md. 2001), aff'd on other grounds, 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004); Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., v 351 F.Supp. 2d 1090, 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2004); Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 488 F.3d, 1102, 1114 (9th Cir 2007). See also H.R. REP. 105-551(I), 25 and T.E. Reese, ‘Wading through the Muddy Waters: The Courts’ Misapplication of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act', Southwestern University Law Review 34 (2004): 287–323.

See Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 828 (C.D.Cal.2006) reversed in part by Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007) and H.R. REP. 105-551(I), 25.

See for example Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1841 (E.D. Va. 2005); 800-JR Cigar, Inc., v. GoTo.com, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 273, 284 (D.N.J 2006); Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper, 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D.Cal. 2007). Compare with Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. 456 F.Supp.2d 393 (N.D.N.Y. 2006). Besides, secondary liability doctrines are particularly restrictive in the field of trademark. See M. Bartholomew and J. Tehranian, ‘The Secret of Life of Legal Doctrine: The Divergent Evolution of Secondary Liability in Trademark and Copyright Law’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 21 (2006): 1363–1419.

See e.g. Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal. App. 4th 684 (Court of Appeal, California, 2001); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (Court of Appeal 4th District, Division 1, California 2002); Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2001); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (Supreme Court of California 2006); Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F.Supp.2d 523, 536+ (D.Md. Feb 14, 2006); Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2007 WL 2949002 (D. Ariz. October 10, 2007).

Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F.Supp.2d 532 ( E.D.Va., 2003): ‘Given that the purpose of §230 is to shield service providers from legal responsibility for the statements of third parties, §230 should not be read to permit claims that request only injunctive relief. After all, in some circumstances injunctive relief will be at least as burdensome to the service provider as damages, and is typically more intrusive.’ See also Ben Ezra, 206 F.3d 980, 983–986 (Court of Appeal, 10th circuit 2000); Smith v. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc., 2002 WL 31844907 (E.D.La. 2002). Compare with Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 2 F.Supp.2d 783, 790 (E.D.Va.1998).

Harvard Law Review, ‘The Principles for User Generated Content Services: A Middle-ground Approach to Cyber-Governance’, Harvard Law Review 121 (2008): 1387–1408.

S. Freiwald, ‘Comparative Institutional Analysis in Cyberspace: The Case of Intermediary Liability for Defamation’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 14 (2001): 569–655. See for example Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., E.D.Va.2003, 261 F.Supp.2d 532, affirmed 2004 WL 602711.

See also Barrett v. Rosenthal, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2004), as modified (3 February 2004).

L. Thoumyre, ‘Les hébergeurs en ombres chinoises – Une tentative d’éclaircissement sur les incertitudes de la LCEN', Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel 5, no. 58 (2005): 58–65.

See for example, CA Paris, 11e ch., 8 November 2006, Comité de défense de la cause arménienne c/ S. Aydin et a., confirming TGI Paris 15 November 2004, www.juriscom.net (negationism); TGI Paris, réf., 19 October 2006, www.juriscom.net (violation of privacy right); TGI Paris, réf., 29 October 2007, M.B., P.T., F. D., c/ Widimedia Foundation Inc., www.legalis.net (violation of privacy right, defamation).

CA Paris, 14e ch., A, 6 December 2006, M. Adbelhadi et Société Dounia c/ Société iEurope et Société Lyocs, no. 06/09805, http://global.lexisnexis.com/fr (violation of right to privacy); CA Paris, 14e ch. A, 12 December 2007, Google Inc. et Google France c/ Benetton Group et Bencom no. 07/10036, www.juriscom.net (trademark infringement). For a criticism of this trend see L. Thoumyre, ‘Précisions contrastées sur trois notions clés relatives à la responsabilité des hébergeurs’, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel 35 (2008): Actualités; the report presented before the Parliament on the application of the Statute no. 2004-575, Rapport D'information sur la mise en application de la loi no. 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique enregistré à la Présidence de l'Asssemblée nationale le 23 janvier 2008, www.juriscom.net. See also TGI Paris, ch. 3, sect. 2, 15 April 2008, Omar et Fred c/ SA Dailymotion et Lafesse c/ SA Dailymotion, www.juriscom.net (copyright infringement).

TGI Paris réf., 2 November 2005, http://www.legalis.net (injunction under penalty payment); TGI Paris, réf., 19 October 2006, Mme H. P. c/SARL Google France et Sté Google Inc., no. 06/58312, http://www.foruminternet.org; Tribunal de commerce de Paris Ordonnance de référé 26 juillet 2007, Kenzo et autres / DMIS (I) et Tribunal de commerce de Paris Ordonnance de référé 31 octobre 2007 Kenzo et autres / DMIS (II), www.legalis.net (hosting providers); TGI Paris, réf., 25 March 2005, Communication commerce électronique 2005, comm. 118, note Grynbaum L.; TGI Paris, réf., 20 April 2005, UEJF, SOS Racisme, J'Accuse et a. c/ OLM-LLC, The Planet.com Internet Services Inc. et a.; TGI Paris, réf., 13 June 2005, L'Union des étudiants juifs de France et autres c/ Sté OLM, LLC et autres, no. 05/553871, www.juriscom.net, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel (7)2005, no. 203, p. 43, obs. Costes; Cour d'Appel de Paris 24 November 2006, St Tiscali Accès et autre c/ Associations UEJF, MRAP, SOS Racisme et autres, http://www.legalis.net and C. cass, civ. 1, 19 June 2008, no. 07-12244 (Internet access providers). For a comment on the role of Internet access providers in the regulatory process see P. Stoffel-Munck, ‘Le rôle des fournisseurs d'accès dans la régulation du réseau n'est pas complètement subsidiaire’, Communication Commerce Electronique 9 (2005): comm. 140.

B. Gorchs, ‘Vers un référé de l'Internet autonome’, Communication Commerce Electronique 12 (2007): Etude no. 31

See Case Cour d'Appel de Paris 24 November 2006, St Tiscali Accès et autre c/ Associations UEJF, MRAP, SOS Racisme et autres, http://www.legalis.net.

See TGI Paris, réf., 19 October 2006, Mme H. P. c/SARL Google France et Sté Google Inc., http://www.foruminternet.org

TC Paris, réf., 26 July 2007 and 31 October 2007, Société Kenzo et autre c/ DMIS, www.legalis.net

See ‘Le développement et la protection des oeuvres culturelles sur les noveaux réseaux’, Novembre 2007, Rapport au ministère de la culture et de la communication, Mission confiée à Denis Olivennes, www.culture.gouv.fr; the agreement concluded between public authorities, author associations and IISPs such as Internet access providers and communitarian platform providers, ‘Accord pour le développement et la protection des oeuvres et programmes culturels sur les nouveaux réseaux’, Friday 23 November 2007, www.culture.gouv.fr. However, 2.0 platforms have refused to sign the agreement, such as Dailymotion. They have nevertheless formed an association to enhance the dialogue with public actors. See the ‘Association des Services Internet Communautaires’ (ASIC), www.lasic.fr. See also Projet de Loi relatif à la Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des oeuvres de la protection des droits sur Internet autrement dénommé Projet de Loi Olivennes (Projet de Loi Olivennes). The legislative plan has however been criticized at the national level and the European level because the main sanction consists in shutting down users' Internet access. See for example Rapport à Monsieur le Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, ‘Le téléchargement illicite d'oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur’, Jean Cédras, April 2007; the amendment adopted by the European Parliament on 10 April 2008 but rejected later on; the note sent by the ASIC to the President, the Prime Minister and several ministers; the critical opinion of the Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques et des postes (ARCEP) and the CNIL of 27 and 30 May 2008.

Generally speaking, the emergence of the web 2.0 has lead to a new wave of Case law on the liability of IISPs in France. See TGI Paris, réf., 22 June 2007, Lambert c/ sté Myspace, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, réf., 2 July 2007, UDAF de l'Ardèche et autre c/ Linden Research et autres, www.legalis.net, TGI Paris, 3e ch., 1re sect., 18 December. 2007, J.-Y. L. et a. c/ Sté Dailymotion, no. 06/18289, www.juriscom.net; TGI Paris, 3e ch., sect. 2, 13 July 2007, Carion c/ SA Dailymotion, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3e ch., sect. 2, 19 October 2007, SARL Zadig Productions c/ sté Google, www.legalis.net, TGI Paris, 3e ch., 1re sect., 18 December 2007, J.-Y. L. et a. c/ Stés Google, no. 07/02707, www.juriscom.net, TGI Paris, réf., 9 January 2008, no. 07/58913, R. Mezrahi et a. c/ SARL Google Inc. et a., TGI Paris, réf., 9 January 2008, no. 07/58929, R. Magdane et a. c/ SARL Google Inc. et a. . Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel (35)2008; TGI Paris, réf, 29 October 2007, M.B., P.T., F. D., c/ Widimedia Foundation Inc., www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, réf., 9 January 2008, no. 07/58929, R. Mezrahi et a. c/ Sté Youtube Inc. and TGI Paris, réf., 9 January 2008, no. 08/50112, R. Magdane et a. c/ Sté Youtube Inc. Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel (35)2008.

CA Paris, 4e ch., A, 7 June 2006, Tiscali Media c/ Dargaud Lombard, Lucky Comics, www.legalis.net (Tiscali); CA Paris, 4e, A, 7 March 2007, Hôtels Meridien c/ Sedo, Stéphane H. www.legalis.net (Meridien); CA Paris, 14e ch., B, 9 November 2007 eBay Europe c/ DWC, www.legalis.net (eBay); TGI Paris, 3e ch., sect. 2, 13 July 2007, Carion c/ SA Dailymotion, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, réf., 22 June 2007, Lambert c/ sté Myspace, www.legalis.net; TC, Paris, 1e ch, B, 30 June 2008, Parfums Christian Dior et autres c/ eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net; TGI Troyes, Ch. Civ., 4 June 2008, Hermès International c/ eBay et autres, www.legalis.net.

Tiscali, Meridien, TGI Paris, réf., 22 June 2007, Lambert c/ sté Myspace, www.legalis.net. Compare with CA Aix-en-Provence, 13 March 2006, Lucent Technologies c/ Escota, www.legalis.net.

Tiscali, see note 27 above.

TC, Paris, 1e ch, B, 30 June 2008, Parfums Christian Dior et autres c/ eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net; TGI Troyes, Ch. Civ., 4 June 2008, Hermès International c/ eBay et autres, www.legalis.net

Cass. com, 20 May 2008, no. 06-20230, 05-14331, 06-15136.

See e.g. CA Paris, 4e ch., B., 1 February 2008, Gifam et atures c/ Google, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3^ème ch, du 12 July 2006, Gifam et autres c/Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3e ch. 3e, 12 December 2007, Syndicat Français de la literie c/ Google France, www.legalis.net; CA Aix-en-Provence, 6 December 2007, TWD Industrie c/ Google France, Google Inc, www.legalis.net; TC Paris, 15e ch., 24 November 2006, One Tel c/ Google, Olfo, www.legalis.net; CA Paris, 4e ch., A, 28 June 2006, Google France c/ Louis Vuitton Malletier, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 12e ch., 1, 2 November 2006, Overture c/ Acor, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 12e ch., 23 March 2006, Google c/ Cnrrh, www.legalis.net; TGI Nanterre, 1e ch., 2 March 2006, Hôtels Méridien c/ Google France, www.legalis.net, TGI Paris, 3e ch., 2e, 8 December 2005, Kertel c/ Google, Cartephone, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 10 March 2005 Google France c/ Viaticum et Luteciel, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 24 June 2005, Amen c/ Espace 2001 et Google France, www.legalis.net. Compare with TC Paris, 8e ch., 31 October 2007, Trednet c/ Bodxl, Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Strasbourg, 2e civ., 20 July 2007, Atrya c/ Google France et autres, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, réf., 12 May 2003, http://www.juriscom.net; CA Paris, 15 May 2002, Altavista c/ Matelsom, www.juriscom.net. Compare in particular TGI Paris, 3^ème ch, du 12 July 2006, Gifam et autres c/Google France, www.legalis.net; TC Paris, 15e ch., 24 November 2006, One Tel c/ Google, Olfo, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3e ch., 2e, 8 December 2005, Kertel c/ Google, Cartephone, www.legalis.net and CA Paris, 4e ch., B., 1 February 2008, Gifam et atures c/ Google, www.legalis.net; CA Aix-en-Provence, 6 December 2007, TWD Industrie c/ Google France, Google Inc, www.legalis.net; CA Paris, 4e ch., A, 28 June 2006, Google France c/ Louis Vuitton Malletier, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 12e ch., 1, 2 November 2006, Overture c/ Acor, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 12e ch., 23 March 2006, Google c/ Cnrrh, www.legalis.net; TGI Nanterre, 1e ch., 2 March 2006, Hôtels Méridien c/ Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 24 June 2005, Amen c/ Espace 2001 et Google France, www.legalis.net.