Regulating the electronic marketplace through extraterritorial legislation: Google and eBay in the line of fire of French judges

Abstract

If the Internet is not the cause of the current normative crisis suffered by states, it is one of the best examples of the regulatory difficulties experienced by public authorities, whose legitimacy to regulate behaviour is seriously challenged. This said, it is an illusion to think that cyberspace is beyond the reach of states. Furthermore, the problem raised by the regulation of the Internet lies more in the fact that too many laws claim to be applicable rather than too little. Indeed, national tort laws have been used at the international level to frame conducts on the electronic marketplace, and in particular, the conduct of intermediaries such as Google or eBay. Through the study of French case law, this paper thus seeks to give an example of the danger of overregulation that is likely to appear in cyberspace owing to the application of extraterritorial legislation, especially when the application of national law amounts to intermediaries' liability.

Keywords:

• international private law
• Internet service providers
• liability

Notes

See M. Vivant, ‘Cybermonde: droit et droits des réseaux’, JCP éd. G (43)1996, I 3969.

J.P. Trachtman, ‘International regulatory competition, externalization, jurisdiction’, Harvard International Law Journal 34 (1993): 54, fn. 24: ‘the extension of jurisdiction to prescribe to conduct taking place abroad’.

Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 5.3 of the Lugano Convention, Article 5.3 of the Bruxelles I Regulation. Article 14 and 15 of the Civil Code are only subsidiary. See Cass. Civ., 16 April 1985, D. 1985, IR 496, Rev. crit. DIP 1987, 584, note Khairallah.

French law is here the lex loci delicti. The recent adoption of Regulation Rome II does not change substantially these solutions. It seems nonetheless that the option granted to the victim between the law where the damage is felt and the law where the generating event took place is brought into question. Cass. 1re civ., 14 January 1997, JCP G 1997, II, No. 22903, note Muir-Watt, D. 1997, jur., p. 177, note Santa Croce, but see Cass. 1re civ., 11 May 1999, JCP G 1999, II, No. 10183, note Muir-Watt, D. 1999, som., p. 295, obs. Audit, JDI 1999, p. 1048, note Légier, Rev. crit. DIP 2000, p. 200, note Bischoff, which accepts that the judges choose between these two laws according to the most relevant contacts. See however TGI Paris, ord. réf., 14 April 2008, Bénédicte S. v. Google Inc. et al., Expertises, aoÛt–sept. 2008, p. 296 et s., note Montbeyre; Comm. Com. Électronique 2008, comm. 119. Caprioli, www.legalis.net.

The application of the lex loci protectionis often amounts to the application of the law of the forum. In particular this is the case for trademark infringements. As a result the question of the conflict of laws is generally never raised. M.-E. Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique 1 (2008): chron. 1. The Regulation Rome II also refers to the lex loci protectionis (Article 8.1) after having opted for the law where the damage occurs as the general principle to be applied when extra-contractual obligations are at issue (Article 4).

See Cass. 1re civ., 5 March 2002, No. 99-20755, Sisro, D. 2002, p. 2999; Cass.1re civ., 30 January 2007, No. 03-12354, Waterworld and more recently TGI Paris, 3e ch., 1er sect., 20 May 2008, RLDI 2008/39, No. 1291. While the decisions of the French Supreme Court do not involve infringements committed through Internet, the decision of the Paris Tribunal does. Commentators have thus heavily criticized the decision of the Paris tribunal. See for example M.-E. Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique 1 (2009): chron. 1; Y. Gaubiac, ‘La convention de Berne, encore méconnue – (commentaire de la décision TGI Paris, 3e ch., sect. B., 20 mai 2008, Sté des auteurs des arts visuels et de l'image fixe (SAIF) c/ SARL Google France, Sté Google Inc.)’, Communication Commerce Electronique 11 (2008): étude 22. It remains to be seen whether this solution will be maintained after the enactment of the Regulation Rome II.

Cass. 1re civ. 9 December 2003, No. 01-03.225, FS-P B, Castellblanch v. Champagne Louis Roderer, Bull. Civ. 2003, I, No. 245, JurisData No. 2003-021338 (trademark infringement).

C. Chabert, ‘La distinction entre site passif et site actif à l'épreuve des conflits de juridictions’, La Semaine Juridique ed. E. (15)2004, II 10055.

Cass. Com., 20 March 2007, No. 04-19.679, F-P+B, Gep industries v. HSM Schuhmarketing, JurisData No. 2007-038233, Bull. civ. 2007, IV, No. 91 (unfair competition case: the defendant was held to be liable for unfair competition); Cass. Com., 11 January 2005, Société Hugo Boss v. Société Reemstma Cigarettenfabriken Gmbh, Bulletin 2005 IV No. 8 p. 8 (trademark infringement: the defendant was held not to be liable for trademark infringement); Cass. Com., 11 January 2005, Société Hugo Boss v. Société Reemstma Cigarettenfabriken Gmbh, Bulletin 2005 IV No. 8 p. 8. See also Cass. com., 10 July 2007, D. 2007, p. 2112, obs. Daleau (trademark infringement: the defendant was held not to be liable for trademark infringement) in fine.

M.-E. Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique 1 (2009): chron. 1.

See for example L. Pech, ‘Contrefaçon de marque sur Internet et compétence des juridictions françaises: la (saine) substitution du critère de destination au critère de l'accessibilité’, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel (2006): 14–17; M. Schaffner and A. Abello, ‘Une synthèse des questions relatives à la responsabilité des plates-formes d'enchères’, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel 41 (2008): 75–86. Compare with C. Caron, ‘Contrefaçon ou concurrence déloyale réalisée sur un site Internet étranger: recherche solutions claires désespérément!’, Communication Commerce Electronique 10 (2007): comm. 119; C. Caron, ‘Marque reproduite sur un site passif: le fond du droit et rien que le fond!’, Communication Commerce Electronique 3 (2005): comm. 37.

M.-E. Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique 1 (2009): chron. 1.

The addition of the adjective intermediary before the expression ISP is aimed at insisting upon the strategic position of the ISPs in the process of digital communication that intervene in between senders and receivers of messages. They therefore have, at least potentially, the (regulatory) power to organize the relationships of the latter.

H. Muir Watt, ‘Aspects économiques du droit international privé’, Receuil des cours 307 (2004): 25–385; J.P. Trachtman, ‘International regulatory competition, externalization, jurisdiction’, Harvard International Law Journal 34 (1993): 44–104; R. Wai, ‘Transnational liftoff and juridical touchdown: the regulatory function of private international law in an era of globalization’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 40 (2002): 209–74.

E. Crabit, ‘La directive sur le commerce électronique’, Revue du Droit de l'Union Européenne 4 (2000): 749–833.

This is less true today since Internet access providers are increasingly involved within 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; ‘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.

See Article 21 of the Directive on e-commerce. The question is however before the European Court of Justice. See the preliminary questions recently raised by the Court of Cassation: Cass. com, 20 May 2008, No. 06-20230, 05-14331, 06-15136; Cass. com., 27 January 2009, Google v. Gifam et autres, www.legalis.net.

CA Versailles, 23 March 2006, Société Google France v. S.A.R.L. CNRRH, www.gazettedunet.fr; TGI Nanterre, 2^e ch., 14 December 2004, CNRRH, Pierre Alexis T. v. Google France et autres, www.legalis.net; CA Paris, 4e ch., A, 28 June 2006, Google France v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, www.legalis.net; CA Aix en Provence, 2^e ch., 6 December 2007, TWD Industries v. Google France, Google Inc., www.juriscom.net; TGI Paris, 14 March 2008, Citadines v. Google Inc. et Google France, www.juriscom.net; CA Paris, 4e ch., B, 1^er February 2008, Gifam et a. v. Google France, www.legalis.net; CA Versailles, 12e ch., 1, 2 November 2006, Overture v. Acor, www.legalis.net; TGI Nanterre, 1e ch., 2 March 2006, Hôtels Méridien v. Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Nanterre, 2^e ch., 13 October 2003, Société Viaticum, Société Luteciel v. Société Google France, www.legalis.net.

TGI Paris, 3e sect., 12 July 2006, Gifam et al. v. Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3e ch., 2e sect., 8 December 2005, Kertel v. Google et Cartephone, Expertises mars 2006, p. 87; et Expertises avr. 2006, pp. 158–59, note Lecardonnel; RLDI 2006, No. 14, No. 409; TGI Paris, 3^e ch., 2^e section, 27 April 2006, AUTO IES v. Google et autres, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3^e ch., 2^e section, 9 March 2006, Promovacances, Karavel v. Google France, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 3^e ch., 3^e section, 7 January 2009, Voyageurs du Monde, Terres d'Aventure v. Google et autres, www.legalis.net; T. com. Paris, 24 November 2006, One Tel v. Google France et OLFO, www.gazettedunet.fr. See also TGI Paris, 12 December 2007, Syndicat Français de la Literie v. Google France, www.juriscom.net; CA Versailles, 12^e ch., section 1, 24 May 2007, Google France v. Hôtels Méridien, www.legalis.net; TGI Paris, 1^e section du 31 October 2006, Iliad v. Google, Helios Service, www.legalis.net and TGI Nanterre, 2e ch, 17 January 2005, Accor v. Overture Services Inc., www.foruminternet.org.

CA Paris, 14^e ch., B, 9 November 2007, eBay Europe v. DWC, www.legalis.net; TGI Troyes, 4 June 2008, Hermès International v. Madame Cindy F., eBay France et eBay International, www.legalis.net; T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Parfums Christian Dior et autres v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net; T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Christian Dior Coutures v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, http://www.legalis.net; T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Louis Vuitton Malletier v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net. At least one in other member state eBay has been held to be a hosting provider allowed to benefit from the provisions of Article 14 of the Directive on e-commerce (T com, Bruxelles, 31 July 2008).

T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Parfums Christian Dior et al v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net ([euro]1,013,000 + [euro]667,000 + [euro]686,000 + [euro]686,000); T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Christian Dior Coutures v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net ([euro]16,300,000); T com, Paris, 1e ch., B, 30 June 2008, Louis Vuitton Malletier v. eBay Inc., eBay International AG, www.legalis.net ([euro]19,180,000).

See TGI Paris, 3^e ch., 3^e section, 7 January 2009, Voyageurs du Monde, Terres d'Aventure v. Google et autres, www.legalis.net. ([euro]200,000+[euro]150,000); CA Versailles, 12^e ch., section 1, 24 May 2007, Google France v. Hôtels Méridien, www.legalis.net ([euro]80,000); CA Paris, 4e ch., A, 28 June 2006, Google France v. Louis Vuitton Malletier, www.legalis.net ([euro]300,000).

P. Van Eecke and B. Ooms, ‘ISP liability and the e-commerce directive: a growing trend toward greater responsability for ISPs’, Journal of Internet Law 11 (2007): 3–9.