Google liability for misleading or deceptive conduct: Australian perspective

On 6 of February 2013, the Australian High Court handed down an important decision in respect of the Google Inc's (Google) appeal against the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia, holding that Google a search engine operator was not liable under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act (TPA) 1974 (Cth) for misleading or deceptive conduct (in respect of misleading advertisements published using Google's online ‘AdWords program’). The decision of the High Court is of great significance for jurisprudence on misleading and deceptive conduct with its broad implications for search engine providers such as Google, advertisers and trademark owners.     

ECFA项下的两岸服务贸易与投资

本文讨论ECFA项下两岸的服务贸易自由化和双向服务投资的相关问题。文章首先分析了EC—FA纳入服务部门对台湾及两岸经贸发展的重要意义,然后归纳了服务贸易早期收获清单的主要内容和代表性措施。ECFA对“服务提供者”进行了符合两岸特殊情况的专门界定,以确保协议优惠措施不外溢到其他国家或地区。ECFA目前在实施中也存在一些问题。     

Copiepresse SCRL & alii v. Google Inc. – In its decision of 5 May 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal confirms the prohibitory injunction order banning Google News and Google’s “in cache” function

In 2003, Google made available in Belgium its online free service “Google News”, which consisted in offering Internet users a computer-generated press review. In his orders of 5 September 2006 (previously commented in [2007] 23 CLSR 82–85) and of 13 February 2007 (previously commented in [2007] 23 CLSR 290–293) the President of the High Court of Brussels found that, by offering this service, Google infringed the copyrights of Belgian press editors and authors. On 5 May 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld to a very large extent the first instance decision. The Court confirmed that Google’s “cache” function and its “Google News” service were infringing the claimants’ copyrights and that Google could not rely on any copyright limitation (such as the exceptions for quotation or for report on news events), legislation or fundamental right.     

The ‘right to be forgotten’ or the ‘principle that has been remembered’

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on questions referred by a Spanish court relating to interpretation of the Data Protection Directive and its application to search engine activities. In a controversial judgment, the CJEU found that search engines are data controllers in respect of their search results; that European data protection law applies to their processing of the data of EU citizens, even where they process the relevant data outside the EU; and that a ‘right to be forgotten’ online applies to outdated and irrelevant data in search results unless there is a public interest in the data remaining available and even where the search results link to lawfully published content.     

Misuse of private information as a tort: The implications of Google v Judith Vidal-Hall

The Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Google Inc v Judith Vidal Hall¹ has made a number of remarkable rulings in the area of privacy. An important aspect of this decision is that it clarified the legal foundation in which an action for unauthorised disclosure of private information is found. However, the decision itself is not without flaws. This paper seeks to analyse potential problems with the action being classified as a tort as well as the scope of misuse of private information being a form of privacy protection.     

Revisiting country of origin principle: Challenges related to regulating e-commerce in the European Union

The article analyses the country of origin principle of information society services in the light of harmonisation and unification efforts undertaken by the European lawgiver. Although the country of origin principle remains the key element of the construction of freedom to provide information society services, the principle itself suffers a number of both explicit and implicit restrictions which render its practical application a serious challenge. The difficulty is posed by the fact that the Electronic Commerce Directive fails to expressly specify both the scope of harmonisation as regards the principle, and the level of harmonisation of the directive itself. Furthermore, it is understood differently by private international lawyers. In the eDate Advertising case the ECJ ruled that the principle is not a conflict-of-laws rule, neither does it require implementation to the national legal systems in this shape. This is not to mean, however, that the debate over the function of the country of origin principle in private international law is over. Last but not least, there are many different types of country of origin principles applicable to various types of services provided via the Internet. This multitude of country of origin principles is perhaps the greatest weakness the regulatory approach adopted by the European lawmaker.