How has the law attempted to tackle the borderless nature of the internet?

International Journal of Law and Information Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 142-175

  Maier, Bernhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953571581     PISSN: 09670769     EISSN: 14643693     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijlit/eaq001     Document Type: Note

References (184)

1. Carrick v Hancock (1895) 12 TLR 59
2. Reidenberg, J, " Technology and Internet Jurisdiction" (2005) 153 U.Pa.L.Rev 1951-1974, at p 1951.
3. These principles are ones of criminal jurisdiction. Even though this essay will focus mainly on civil jurisdiction, they provide a good overview of the circumstances under which a State has the power to enforce its laws beyond its sovereign territory.
4. (See also below, Shaw, 2003, Chapter 12)
5. Shaw, M, International Law (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2003), p. 579.
6. Cassesse, A, International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2005), p. 3.
7. Hill, J, International Commercial Disputes in English Courts (Hart Publishing: Oxford and Portland, Oregon 2005) (hereafter Hill), p. 3.
8. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, No RG:00/05308, May 22,2000 and November 20, 2000.
9. For subsequent US appeals see Yahoo! Inc v La Ligue contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 145 f.Supp. 2d 1168, June 7, 2001 and 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181, November 7, 2001.
10. Davis P,A, " The Defamation of Choice-of-Law in Cyberspace: Countering the View that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is Inadequate to Navigate the Borderless Reaches of the Intangible Frontier" (2002) 54 Fed. Comm. L. J. 341.
11. Bennett, C, J, " Convergence Revisited: Toward a Global Policy for the Protection of Personal Data?" in Agre and Rotenberg (eds) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape (The MIT Press: Cambridge Massachusetts and London England 1998), p. 99.
12. Kohl, U, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Regulatory Competence over Online Activity (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2007), p. 166.
13. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, No RG: 00/05308, Interim Order May 22, 2000 available at.
14. Decision affirming Order on November 20, 2000, available at .
15. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Interim Order, May 22, 2000 (supra note 19)
16. See also Hu, J, and Hansen, E, Yahoo Auction Case May Reveal Borders Of Cyberspace, CNET News.com (11 August 2000), online: C-Net News .
17. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Ca. 2001).
18. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Interim Order May 22, 2000 (supra note 19).
19. For a succinct French summary of the decisions see .
20. For Professor Reidenberg's view see Interview with Reidenberg (infra note 24)
21. See also Zekos, I, 'State Cyberspace Jurisdiction and Personal Cyberspace Jurisdiction' (2007) 15(1) IJLIT 1, pp. 29-31.
22. Reidenberg, J, " Technology and Internet Jurisdiction" (2005) 153 U.Pa.L.Rev 1951, pp. 1951-1952.
23. Manolopolous, A, " Raising 'Cyber-Borders': The Interaction Between Law and Technology." (2003) 11 I.J.L. & I.T. 40, pp. 46-49.
24. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Decision affirming Interim Order, November 20, 2000 (supra note 19) p. 16.
25. The legal implications of the Yahoo! Inc. nazi memorabilia dispute: an interview with Professor Joel R. Reidenberg, January/ March 2001, available online at: , para 1.
26. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Decision affirming Interim Order, November 20, 2000 (supra note 19), p. 1.
27. Manolopolous, A, " Raising 'Cyber-Borders': The Interaction Between Law and Technology." (2003) 11 I.J.L. & I.T. 40 (hereafter Manolopolous), p. 45.
28. UEJF et LICRA v Yahoo! Inc. et Yahoo France, Decision affirming Interim Order, November 20, 2000 (supra note 19), p. 14.
29. Kohl, 2007, (supra note 17), p. 99.
30. Svantesson, D, Private International Law and the Internet (Kluwer Law International: Alphen aan den Rijn 2007), at p. 5.
31. See also LICRA v Yahoo, May 22 Decision (supra note 19)
32. Harris, D, J, Cases and Materials on International Law (Sweet and Maxwell: London 2004), p 279, (original quotations omitted)
33. Manolopolous, 2003 (supra note 27), p. 43.
34. Yahoo!, Inc. V. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001), p.22.
35. Reidenberg Interview (supra note 24)
36. Manolopolous, 2003 (supra note 27), p. 43.
37. th Cir. 2006).
38. Kohl, 2007 (supra note 17), p. 205.
39. Svantesson, 2007 (supra note 30) p. 53.
40. th Edition, (Oxford University Press: Oxford 2003) at p. 645.
41. Svantesson, 2007 (supra note 30), p. 50.
42. Muth, T, " Old Doctrines on a New Frontier: Defamation and Jurisdiction in Cyberspace" (1995) 68 Wis. Law. 10-12.
43. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L012
44. Article 2 states that " Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State."
45. Article 5(3), underlining added
46. Bier B.V. v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S.A., Case C-21/76 [1976] E.C.R. 1735, paragraph 24.
47. Shevill v Presse Alliance Case C-68/93 [1995] ECR I-415
48. Dow Jones & Co Inc v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (03 February 2005), at paragraph 49, see also Shevill v Presse Alliance (n44 above) para 33
49. Shevill v Presse Alliance Case C-68/93 [1995] ECR I-415 (n44 above), para. 9.
50. Shevill v Presse Alliance Case C-68/93 [1995] ECR I-415 (n44 above), para. 8.
51. See also Forsyth, C, " Defamation under the Brussels Convention: A Forum Shopper's Charter?" (1995) CLJ 515-517, p.514.
52. Smith, G, " Here, there or everywhere? Cross-border liability on the internet" (2007) 13(2) CTLR 41-51(hereafter Smith), p. 43.
53. Emphasis added
54. Report on the Application of the Regulation Brussels I in the Member States presented by Burkhard Hess, Thomas Pfeiffer and Peter Schlosser, Final Version September 2007. The report is a study conducted with a view of evaluating the effectiveness of the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation. (Hereafter Schlosser Report).
55. Schlosser Report, (supra note 55) para. 214.
56. Kohl, 2007 (supra note 17), p. 125.
57. LexisNexis UK Legal News Analysis: " Rome II proposals fuel debate of cross-border defamation laws" (15/8/06) available under .
58. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick, M3/2002 (28 May 2002), 21, also 25f.
59. Lexis Nexis UK Legal News Analysis (supra note 58)
60. Schlosser Report, (supra note 55) para. 215.
61. Article 33 (1) of Brussels I Regulation: " A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required."
62. Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004
63. About 2000 out of a total circulation of almost 800,000. Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] 1 WLR 1004, at 1008.
64. Berezovsky v Michaels (supra note 63), at 1013
65. American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Torts, 2d (1977), section 577A
66. Berezovsky v Michaels (supra note 63), at 1011
67. See also Prosser, W, " Interstate Publication" (1953) 51 Michigan L. Rev. 959.
68. Garnett, R, 'Dow Jones & (and) Company Inc v. Gutnick Casenote' (2003) 4 Mel.J.Int.L. 196-216, at 199.
69. Berezovsky v Michaels (supra note 63), at 1011
70. International Shoe v Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) at 316.
71. Berezovsky v Michaels (supra note 63), 1012
72. Harrods Ltd v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2003] EWHC 1162 (QB).
73. Lewis v King [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 (CA)
74. Dow Jones v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] Q.B. 946.
75. Dow Jones v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75, at para. 1.
76. Al Amoudi v Brisard and another [2006] EWHC 1062 (QB), [2007] 1 W.L.R. 113.
77. Gutnick (2002) 194 ALR 433, affirming Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co. Inc. [2001] VSC 305 (Hedigan J).
78. Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2001] VSC 305 para. 60.
79. Gutnick (2002) (supra note 85), para. 20.
80. (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ) As Garnett points out it was crucial that Gutnick restricted his claim to damages arising out of publication in Victoria so the only 'tort' the trial court would have to consider would be a Victorian one involving the application of local law
81. See Garnett, 2003, (supra note 70) at 199
82. Gutnick (2002) (supra note 85), para. 44 (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
83. Lewis v King [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 (CA) para. 47.
84. Smith, 2007 (supra note 53), p. 47.
85. Svantesson, 2007 (supra note 30), p. 38.
86. Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick 194 ALR 433 (10 December 2002), para.101.
87. Which in Europe is enshrined in Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, implemented in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998
88. Gunasekara, G. 'The " final" privacy frontier? Regulating trans-border data flows' (2007) 15(3) I.J.L & I.T. 362-393 (hereafter Gunasekara), at pp 365.
89. Edwards, L, 'Consumer privacy, on-line business and the internet: looking for privacy in all the wrong places' (2003) 11(3) I.J.L. & I.T. 226-250, at p. 227.
90. th 2008, http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=microsoft+takes&y=0&aje=false&x=0&id=071024000626&;ct=0.
91. Gunasekara, 2007 (supra note 98), p. 364.
92. Council Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L281/31, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1995/en_395L0046.html.
93. Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdictional Issues Created by the Internet, 55 Business Lawyer 1801 (2000)
94. Nijhawan, D. " The Emperor has No Clothes: A Critique of Applying the European Union Approach to Privacy Regulation in the United States" (2003) 56 Vand. L. Rev. 939-976 (hereafter Nijhawan), 941.
95. See also Gunasekara, 2007 (supra note 98) at p. 367 where the author points to a statement made by Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada succinctly explaining the effect of the principles enshrined in the DPD: " people should be told what information is being collected about them, by whom, for what purposes; they should be told what is being done with it and who it is being disclosed to; they should be able to control the collection, use and disclosure of the information through the power of granting or withholding consent; the information should be securely held and treated as confidential; people should have a right of access to their information, and a right to correct it where necessary." .
96. Charlesworth, A. " Data Privacy in Cyberspace: Not National vs. International but Commercial v Individual." in Edwards and Waelde eds Law & the Internet: a framework for electronic commerce (Hart: Oxford 2000) (hereafter Charlesworth), p. 94.
97. Nijhawan, 2003 (supra note 105) p. 943.
98. Kuner, C. European Data Privacy Law & Online Business (Oxford University Press: New York 2003) (hereafter Kuner), p. 120.
99. The attainment of this goal requires Member States' governments to refrain from engaging in activities that impede one of the four fundamental pillars of the Union, namely the free movement of persons, goods, services and money within the EU
100. Charlesworth, 2000 (supra note 108) p. 84.
101. Charlesworth, 2000 (supra note 108) at p. 86.
102. This reads as follows: Each supervisory authority is competent, whatever the national law applicable to the processing in question, to exercise, on the territory of its own Member State, the powers conferred on it in accordance with paragraph 3. Each authority may be requested to exercise its powers by an authority of another Member State. The supervisory authorities shall cooperate with one another to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties, in particular by exchanging all useful information.
103. Article 4(1)(a)
104. Article 29 Working Party, " Working document on determining the international application of EU data protection law to personal data processing on the Internet by non-EU based websites" (30 May 2002) (hereafter Working Document 2), pp. 6-7, .
105. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110) p. 89.
106. Terwangne and Louveaux, Data Protection and Online Networks (1997) 13 Computer Law and Security Review, 234 at 238
107. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110) p. 88.
108. Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others Case C-221/89 [1991] ECR I-3905, para. 20.
109. Dhont, J, and Poullet, Y, " Data Protection-Belgium: An Analysis of the New Law" (2000) C.L.S.R. 5 (hereafter Dhont and Poullet), p. 9.
110. Section 5(1)(a)
111. Article 4(1)(c), emphasis added
112. Article 4(1)(c)
113. Section 5(1)(b)
114. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110), p. 96.
115. see also Dhont and Poullet, 2000 (supra note 124) p. 9.
116. Terwangne and Louveaux, 1997 (supra note 117) at 238
117. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110), p. 98.
118. U Dammann and S Simitis, EG-Datenschutzrichtlinie (Nomos, 1997) 129-130
119. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110), p. 100.
120. Wikipedia.org, Definition of " http cookie" , , accessed 09/02/08.
121. Article 29 Working Party, " Privacy on the Internet: A Comprehensive EU Approach to Online Data Protection" (21 November 2000), p. 28, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2000/wp37en.pdf.
122. Article 29 Working Party, " Working document on determining the international application of EU data protection law to personal data processing on the Internet by non-EU based websites" (30 May 2002) (hereafter Working Document 2), p. 11, http://www.interlex.it/testi/pdf/wd5035.pdf.
123. Bygrave, L, " European Data Protection-Determining Applicable Law Pursuant to European Data Protection Legislation" , (2000) 16 C.L.S.R. 252-257, p. 255.
124. Bygrave, 2000 (supra note 139), p. 255.
125. Article 29 Working Group Paper, 2002 (supra note 138), p. 14.
126. Council Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. (12 July 2002) OJ L 201/37.
127. For example see Edwards, 2003 (supra note 99)
128. Article 29 Working Party, " Opinion 4/2000 on the level of protection provided by the " Safe Harbor Principles" (16 May 2003) at p. 3.
129. See also Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110), at p. 119.
130. Kuner, 2003 (supra note 110), at p. 119.
131. Nijhawan, 2003 (supra note 105) p. 945.
132. (Kuner, 2003), p. 121.
133. Article 29 Working Group Paper (supra note 138), p. 6.
134. Gunasekara, 2007 (supra note 98), p. 268.
135. Goldsmith, J, " What Internet Gambling Legislation Teaches About Internet Regulation" (1998) 32 Int'l L. 1115, at 1116.
136. st of September 2007, see Explanatory Memorandum No.2082 to the Gambling Act 2005, available under .
137. Council Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce), [2000] OJ L178
138. Hellner, M, " The Country of Origin Principle in the E-Commerce Directive - A Conflict with Conflict of Laws?" E.R.P.L. (2004) 12(2) 193-213, p. 196.
139. Article 3(1)
140. Waelde, C, " Article 3, ECD: Internal Market Clause - International Private Law, Consumers and the Net: A Confusing Maze or a Smooth Path Towards a Single European Market?" in Edwards (ed) The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe (Hart: Portland, Oregon 2005), at p. 12.
141. See also Council Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce), [2000] OJ L178, Recital 22. In the Directive itself, Article 3(1) provides that " [e]ach Member State shall ensure that the information society services provided by a service provider established on its territory comply with the national provisions applicable in the Member State in question which fall in the coordinated field."
142. ECD, Article 1(5)
143. Littler, A, " The Regulation of Gambling at European Level. The Balance to be Found" (2007) ERA Forum 8, 357-371, p. 358.
144. European Commission, Gambling in the Single Market - A Study of the Current Legal and Market Situation, 1991 and European Council, Conclusions of the Presidency, Edinburgh, 11 and 12 December 1992 (DOC/92/8, 13.12.1992).
145. Customs and Excise Commissioners v Schindler, Case C-275/92 [1994] ECR I-1039, at para. 13.
146. Criminal Proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli, Case C-243/01 [2003] ECR I-13031
147. Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Placanica, Case C-338/04 [2007] ECR I-01891
148. The freedom to provide services is one of the fundamental freedoms establishing the Internal Market
149. Section 33(1)
150. Article 4(2)(a) provides that " remote gambling" means, inter alia, the participation in gambling by means of the Internet
151. Section 36(3), emphasis added. However, it is interesting to note that the British government has, in the first week of January 2010, announced that it is planning on extending the jurisdictional scope of the Gambling Act by introducing an objective targeting test under which every gambling provider targeting the British market will be required to obtain a license from the Gambling Commission - See Written Answers and Statements " Remote Gambling" by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 7 January 2010, available at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-01-07a.11WS.1.
152. Section 36 (5)
153. th of November 2003), para. 79, emphasis added.
154. Kohl, 2007, (supra note 17), p. 183.
155. Section 46(1)
156. Statement of John G. Malcolm, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Special Briefing: Money Laundering and Payment Systems in Online Gambling. Sponsored by the World Online Gambling Law Report. London, England. (November 20, 2002), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/JGM_Intgambling.htm.
157. Schwartz, J, " Click the Mouse and Bet the House: The United States Gambling Restrictions Before the World Trade Organization" (2005) J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 125, at p. 127.
158. See also Shaker, P, " America's Bad Bet: How the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 will Hurt the House" (2007) 12 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 1183.
159. Andrle, J, " A Winning Hand: A Proposal for an International Regulatory Schema with Respect to the Growing Online Gambling Dilemma in the United States" (2004) 37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1389, at p.1399.
160. For example the Arrest of David Carruthers, see Fränngård, C, " Issues of Jurisdiction and Enforcement in Internet Gambling" , (2007) Available at
161. Andrle, 2004 (supra note 181) p. 1402.
162. The Lotus Case (France v Turkey) P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A, No 10, (1927), pp. 19; 4 AD, p. 156.
163. The Future Regulation of Remote Gambling: A DCMS Position Paper, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, April 2003, at para. 108.
164. See also Bowers, S, " Players walk away as US law wipes out 90% of PartyGaming's poker revenue" The Guardian Online October 17 2006 available at .
165. Walsh, F, " Last chance saloon for online gaming firms" The Guardian Online October 13 2006 available at .
166. Schwartz, 2005 (supra note 179), p. 123.
167. Panel Report, World Trade Organization, Report of the Panel, " United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services" , (10 November 2004) WT/DS285/RW, available at http://www.antiguawto.com/wto/37_WTO_Panel_Report_%2010Nov04.pdf, paras. 3.39 and 3.286.
168. See also para. 266 of the Appellate Report, below note 181.
169. Appellate Report, World Trade Organization, Report of the Appellate Body, " United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services" , (7 April 2005) AB-2005-1, available at , at pp. 123-124.
170. See also WTO summary available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds285sum_e.pdf.
171. See Summary of the dispute by Mark Mendel, attorney for Antigua, available at .
172. Andrle, 2004 (supra note 181), p. 1406.
173. Waelde, 2005 (supra note 158), p.7.
174. Article 29 Working Group Paper, 2002 (supra note 138), p. 6.
175. Reed, C, Internet Law: Text and Materials (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2004), at p. 254.
176. Article 29 Working Group Paper, 2002 (supra note 138), p. 6.
177. With the Hague Convention, an attempt was made to establish a uniform global system of jurisdictional rules of recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. However, the concept was never realised to substantial disagreement regarding numerous provisions on the part of major trading blocs such as the U.S.
178. For further discussion see Roebuck, W, " What will be the impact of the Hague Convention on the choice of court agreements?" (2007) 13(7) CTLR 197-198
179. Article 29 Working Group Paper, 2002 (supra note 138), p. 7.
180. The Future Regulation of Remote Gambling: A DCMS Position Paper, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, April 2003, at p.113.
181. Yahoo! v LICRA 169 F Supp 2d 1181(ND Cal, 2001) at 1192
182. The Future Regulation of Remote Gambling: A DCMS Position Paper, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, April 2003. 102.
183. Littler, 2007 (supra note 160), p.371.
184. Roebuck, 2007 (supra note 199)