Internet Service Provider Liability - The Swiss Perspective

Switzerland does not have a concrete legal framework dealing with rights and obligations of ISPs; however, legal doctrine and practice apply similar principles as stated in the E-Commerce Directive of the EU. The liability of ISPs depends on the “closeness” to the content. Whereas in cases of solely transmitting services the risk of liability for illegal information is remote and the duty of ISPs is limited to a take-down, content, host and link providers (in cases of moder- ated newsgroups) can become liable if the information made available is not controlled.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

Regulations on E-Commerce Consumer Protection Rules in China and Europe Compared – Same Same but Different?

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the regulations on e-commerce protection rules in China and the European Union. It starts by giving a general overview of different approaches towards consumer protection in e-commerce. This article then scrutinizes the current legal system in China by mainly focusing on SAIC’s “Interim Measures for the Administration of Online Commodity Trading and Relevant Service Activities”. The subsequent chapter covers the supervision of consumer protection in e-commerce in China, which covers both the regulatory objects of online commodity trading and the applied regulatory mechanisms. While the regulatory objects include operating agents, operating objects, operating behavior, electronic contracts, intellectual property and consumer protection, the regulatory mechanisms for e-commerce in China combines market mechanism and industry self-discipline under the government’s administrative regulation. Further, this article examines the current European legal system in online commodity trading. It outlines the aim and the scope of EU legislation in the respective field. Subsequently, the paper describes the European approach towards the supervision of consumer protection in e-commerce. As there is no central EU agency for consumer protection in e-commerce transactions, the EU stipulates a framework for Member States’ institutions, thereby creating a European supervisory network of Member States’ institutions and empowers private consumer organisations to supervise the market on their behalf. Moreover, the EU encourages the industry to self- or co-regulate e-commerce by providing incentives. Consequently, this article concludes that consumer protection may be achieved by different means and different systems. However, even though at first glance the Chinese and the European system appear to differ substantially, a closer look reveals tendencies of convergence between the two systems.

Bittorent Loses Again: A Recent Lithuanian BitTorrent Case and What It Means for the Construction of the E-commerce Directive

This article first discusses a recent Lithuanian BitTorrent case, Linkomanija, with its shortcomings and perspectives. It then compares the outcomes of the Lithuanian case with recent court practice in Scandinavian countries (the Swedish Pirate Bay and Finnish Finreactor cases). Finally, it poses some questions as to whether BitTorrent sites should be qualified as hosting services under Article 14 of the EU E-commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) and whether the application of the limited liability standard, as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, would be reasonable for BitTorrent file-sharing services in general.