Source: https://www.scribd.com/presentation/55942408/Norwich-Pharmacal-orders-Twitter-Google-Facebook-Amazon-and-Internet-Jurisdiction
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 07:35:59
Document Index: 288467216

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 5', 'Arts 15', 'Art 3', 'Art 4', 'Art 4', 'Art 4', 'Art 4', 'Art 6', 'Art 6', 'Art 6', 'Art 3', 'Art 4', 'Art 6', 'Art 6', 'Art 6']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinJurisdictionLW205 28 February 2011
LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc./Société Yahoo!
Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme et Union des étudiants juifs de France
Tribunal de grande instance, Paris.
sale of Nazi memorabilia by auction ordered on 22 May 2000 to
take all appropriate measures to Block French access to Nazi memorabilia
Yahoo! Claimed could not comply
Yahoo! contended that it was impossible to comply with this order. The report of the court-appointed experts noted that, as of 2000, roughly 70% of French internet users could be identified as such by the use of DNS databases. Yahoo! Inc. must comply within three months or face a fine of 15,244.90 EUR per day. 10 Jan. 2001 Yahoo! No appeal in France
US Yahoo Jurisdictional Proceedings
Northern District of California: ` French ordinance not effective US, per J.Fogel: ` France constitution inconsistent with 1st Amendment, inapplicable. ` Article 10 of European Convention permits restriction on racist-hate speech Court of Appeals 9th Circ., 23 Aug. 2004, reversed: ` no personal jurisdiction over appellants, LICRA and UEJF.
Rule from Supreme Court
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc. Exercise of jurisdiction requirements of "minimum contacts" and "fair play and substantial justice" where (1) non-resident purposefully directed activities with a resident, invoking US benefits and protections; (2) relates to defendant·s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. BUT [LICRA] did not engage in conduct targeted at a known US plaintiff. Dissenting opinion J.Brunetti: viewed French as constituting "a defendant·s intentional targeting of his actions at the plaintiff in the forum stateµ.
Further quashing of US jurisdiction
2006-01-12, remanded the case: on ripeness or personal jurisdiction grounds. J. Fletcher : ` Yahoo! is necessarily arguing that it has a 1st Amendment right to violate French criminal law and to facilitate the violation of French criminal law by others. ` the very existence of such an extraterritorial right under 1st Amendment is uncertain. 30 May 2006 Supreme Court denied certiorari
Wikileaks ² where is it?
Servers through intermediaries
Amazon ¶cloud· services (extra-legal) France hosting company Swedish host still stable 355 mirror servers within a week Germany/PayPal: Wau Holland Foundation http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/paypalwikileaks/#seealso2d52c189190cd7ea57378e8f4259958b Swiss post office account Note Swedish 2nd arrest warrant + Interpol Assange under house arrest on remand in England
Foundation through cash
Individual through personal jurisdiction
Appealing extradition to Sweden (and then US?)
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 The Brussels I Regulation OJ L12/1
Art. 2 (read with Arts. 59 & 60) general provision that a person domiciled in a Member State normally to be sued in Member State Art. 4 Member State courts to apply domestic law rules to determine jurisdiction in respect of persons not domiciled in a Member State Art. 5 provisions for special jurisdiction as exceptions to the general provisions on jurisdictions Réunion Européene v Spliethoff·s Bevrachtingskantoor [1998] ECR I-6511 Arts 15-17 provisions relating to jurisdiction in relation to consumer contracts
Rome I Regulation EC 593/2008
Freedom of Choice/Parties Express Choice: Art 3(1) ` ´a contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. ` The choice shall be made expressly or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the caseµ. Absence of Choice by Parties: applicable law shall be determined according to general rules; Machinale Glasfabriek De Maas B.V. v. Emaillerie Alsacienne S.A. [1984] [1985] 2 C.M.L.R. 281) When not covered by general rules or covered by more than one heading of Art 4(1) law of characteristic performer·s country of habitual residence; Art 4(2) When manifestly more closely connected with a country other than one indicated by general rules or of characteristic performer·s habitual residence; Art 4(3) When applicable law cannot be determined under Art 4(1) or 4(2) ² law of country with which the contract is most closely connected
Law of Consumer·s habitual residence (subject to conditions); Art 6(1) Parties may choose but must not deprive consumer of protection of consumer·s country of habitual residence; Art 6(2) In absence of Art 6(1), applicable law determined under Art 3 or Art 4; Art 6(3) Exclusion of Art 6(1)&(2); Art 6(4)
An effective global remedy
12 Feb 2010 New Law Journal Vol 160, Issue 7404 Anna Caddick & Hugh Tomlinson
NP orders v. ISPs to discover the identity of anonoymous individuals ISPs often US-based
Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, Google.
´Facebookµ case³ ` Applause Store Productions & Firsht v Raphael
[2008] EWHC 1781, [2008] All ER (D) 321 (Jul).
disclosure of the registration details, including the e-mail, IP addresses.
EWHC 3148 (QB), [2009] All ER (D) 92 (Dec)
G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009]
Identify person publishing private information
Jurisdiction: the Google problem
Lockton v. Persons Unknown & Google Inc
[2009] EWHC 3423 (QB).
Lockton: claimant claimed defamatory e-mails which also contained confidential information.
IP addresses assigned to Google: Gmails were sent. Option: obtain subscriber details IP login from Google.
Google would provide info. on court order BUT Declined jurisdiction of the court. Holland J.:
court had jurisdiction to make an order against a US company without a place of business in England?
Jurisdiction: the solution
Application for permission to serve Civil Procedure Rules 6.36 Grounds in para 3.1.3 of Practice Direction B met: ´A claim is made against a person (the defendant) on whom the claim form has been or will be served (otherwise than in reliance on this para) and³ (a) there is between the claimant and the defendant a real issue which it is reasonable for the court to try; and (b) the claimant wishes to serve the claim form on another person who is a necessary and proper party to the claim.µ
Obstacle to Google as party
General rule Burstall v Beyfus (1884) 26 Ch D 35 ` vexatious to enjoin a party solely for obtaining disclosure. ` Burstall principle was applied to decline joinder of a foreign corporation in
Unilever v Chefaro Proprietaries [1994] FSR 135.
Google: no independent claim for relief under Norwich Pharma ` suggested that special policy considerations applied to ISPs. ` providers deal with customers throughout the world. ` location of the offices is a matter of convenience, ` relationship with their customers automatic and electronic. ` It would be absurd if physical presence affected the ability of a wronged person to obtain relief?
US alternative claim
US ¶John Doe· proceedings v. emailer ` plus disclosure v. Google ` more costly and time consuming ` US judge well placed to judge merits? Google suffers little prejudice through the order? ` indicated that it would comply Eady J. held: ` exercises discretion to serve order on Google ` exercise jurisdiction making NP order
Norwich Pharma order removes anonymity. Jurisdiction problem serious obstacle for relief. Eady J. enables
courts to grant such orders against foreign ISPs. make an order against a foreign ISP.
English court take jurisdiction and
Issue an application notice
against ´Persons Unknownµ with ISP as second defendant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction at same time as Norwich Pharma application.
Is English libel Bar creating work for itself? Is US right to refuse to impose 1st Amendment on France? Is consumer right to ¶home decision· practical?
More From This UserSlovenia Net Neutrality law 2012In3 Conference flyer 10-11 AprilNet neutralityYasar10May2011China Law Society 2011EuroCPRVoluntary Industry Code of Practice on Traffic Management Transparency on Broadband Services March 2011Software AgentsOnline Business Transactions and the Applicability of Traditional English Contract Law RulesElectronic Bills of Lading and Functional EquivalenceAre Agent Exclusion Clauses a LegitimateEdinburgh presentation on Internet co-regulation 2010Inter Network ScienceSCL21112008Convergence 3.0Three Wise Monkeys of Net NeutralityOPEN INTERNET AND NET NEUTRALITY IN EUROPE Marsden respons…OfCom Disconnection Timetable 2010Marsden Mobile Net NeutralityOxford Internet Institute 17032010Authors@Google Brussels 18032010Regulating the Broadband InternetI want my Wi-FiRethinking Broadband Regulation 2001 - layers model for regulatory practiceProtecting the Public Interest under Global Convergence
Norwich Pharmacal orders, Twitter/Google/Facebook/Amazon and Internet Jurisdiction by Chris Marsden212 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionA primer on how UK courts impose their judgments against foreign intermediariesA primer on how UK courts impose their judgments against foreign intermediariesInterests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Related1 - Averment of Jurisdictionvby JahiJohannes v. Harveyby Bernie Cabang PringaseMetropolitan Cebu Water District v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 172438, July 4, 2012by Kris RazoNeb. Machinery Co. v Erickson - personal jurisdiction copyright internet declaratory judgment.pdfby Mark H. JaffeUntitledby eurolexMulti Feeder Tech v British Confectionaryby Seth LeventhalShipping Financial Services Corporation v. William J. Drakos, Duke Petroleum Transport Corporation and Omi Petrolink Corporation, 140 F.3d 129, 2d Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government DocsCivil Procedure Outline Misc 3by HollyBriannaNed Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and Third-Party v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, 405 F.2d 250, 2d Cir. (1968)by Scribd Government DocsMedlin, Mitchel C., Theurer, James, Reed, William and McClintock Earl, Devault, Donald C. v. Boeing Vertol Company, Bowers, James and Owens, E. v. Local 1069 of the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw). Medlin, Mitchel C., Theurer, James, Reed, William and McClintock Earl, Devault, Donald C., in No. 79-1027 Boeing Vertol Company, in No. 79-1028 Local 1069 of the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw), in No. 79-1029, 620 F.2d 957, 3rd Cir. (1980)by Scribd Government DocsAverment of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto - GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURTby J. F. El - All Rights ReservedUS Federal Trade Commission: 20000101299912311389Out0by ftcidea-vol46-no3-magierby David MagierAndre v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comSegundo Suenos LLC v Jonesby Ray Dowd20160629-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re -Re COMPLAINT Against His Honour Carmody Jby Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka7-Elements-of-Jurisdictionby Joy Garner28 Wells Fargo FULLby Yo Hadsot SaripCrimpro Digestby washburnx20Wideman v. Watson, 10th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government DocsFraser Side IP v Kovalchukby propertyintangibleIndependence Federal Savings Bankby M-Faheem AslamSisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)by Scribd Government DocsEdited - Bayan Muna vs Romuloby Jed SulitDavis v. PHH Mortgage Corp - Document No. 3by Justia.comDavid Shapiro v. The Republic of Bolivia, the Bolivian Air Force and the Central Bank of Bolivia, 930 F.2d 1013, 2d Cir. (1991)by Scribd Government DocsDavid Oliver, Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem, Linda L. Oliver v. John Rudolph Hardesty, 745 F.2d 317, 4th Cir. (1984)by Scribd Government DocsAntiporda vs. Garchitorenaby misty-sunSimilar to Norwich Pharmacal orders, Twitter/Google/Facebook/Amazon and Internet Jurisdiction1 - Averment of JurisdictionvJohannes v. HarveyMetropolitan Cebu Water District v. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 172438, July 4, 2012Neb. Machinery Co. v Erickson - personal jurisdiction copyright internet declaratory judgment.pdfUntitledMulti Feeder Tech v British ConfectionaryShipping Financial Services Corporation v. William J. Drakos, Duke Petroleum Transport Corporation and Omi Petrolink Corporation, 140 F.3d 129, 2d Cir. (1998)Civil Procedure Outline Misc 3Ned Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and Third-Party v. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, 405 F.2d 250, 2d Cir. (1968)Medlin, Mitchel C., Theurer, James, Reed, William and McClintock Earl, Devault, Donald C. v. Boeing Vertol Company, Bowers, James and Owens, E. v. Local 1069 of the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw). Medlin, Mitchel C., Theurer, James, Reed, William and McClintock Earl, Devault, Donald C., in No. 79-1027 Boeing Vertol Company, in No. 79-1028 Local 1069 of the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw), in No. 79-1029, 620 F.2d 957, 3rd Cir. (1980)Averment of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto - GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURTUS Federal Trade Commissionidea-vol46-no3-magierAndre v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints et al - Document No. 3Segundo Suenos LLC v Jones20160629-Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Peter Kidd CJ CCV-Re -Re COMPLAINT Against His Honour Carmody J7-Elements-of-Jurisdiction28 Wells Fargo FULLCrimpro DigestWideman v. Watson, 10th Cir. (2015)Fraser Side IP v KovalchukIndependence Federal Savings BankSisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990)Edited - Bayan Muna vs RomuloDavis v. PHH Mortgage Corp - Document No. 3David Shapiro v. The Republic of Bolivia, the Bolivian Air Force and the Central Bank of Bolivia, 930 F.2d 1013, 2d Cir. (1991)David Oliver, Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem, Linda L. Oliver v. John Rudolph Hardesty, 745 F.2d 317, 4th Cir. (1984)Antiporda vs. GarchitorenaMunicipality+of+Malolos+v+Libangan+FormattedSchultzNorwich Pharmacal orders, Twitter/Google/Facebook/Amazon and Internet Jurisdiction