European Court Delivers Crucial Anti-Filtering Judgment

November 30, 2011

After the encouraging opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in the Scarlet vs SABAM case delivered in April 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its final judgment on 24 November. One can say that the judgment is crucial for the Internet economy in general and for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in particular, in two important ways. First, it clarifies and strengthens the ‘no general obligation to monitor’ provision enshrined in the e-Commerce Directive and, second, it makes clear that filtering measures raise concerns under a couple of fundamental rights, which have to be reconciled as much as possible. But let’s first turn to the facts of the case.

The judgment is the outcome of a reference for a preliminary ruling in a long lasting legal dispute between SABAM, a Belgian artists and authors’ rights group, and Scarlet, a Belgian ISP. In essence, SABAM sought a declaration that the copyright in musical works belonging to its repertoire was violated because of unauthorized online sharing enabled by Scarlet’s services. In a second step, SABAM sought an order requiring Scarlet to bring the alleged infringement to an end through filtering and blocking techniques. By a first judgment in 2004, the national court established that copyright infringements took place. In a second judgment in 2007, Scarlet was ordered to install a system that blocks users from sending or receiving copyrighted music. Scarlet appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal in Brussels which referred the case to the CJEU.

In a first step the CJEU made clear that the Belgian court’s injunction de facto requires Scarlet to actively monitor its customers’ data for the purpose of preventing IPR infringements. Filtering mechanisms can only be effective if data is monitored in advance on a broad scale. It is precisely this fact that the Court considers to contradict the e-Commerce Directive since Article 15 clearly exempts ISPs from a general obligation to monitor the information that runs through their systems.

In a second step the CJEU laid down how a general filtering system as envisaged by SABAM would violate the ISP’s as well as its customers’ fundamental rights. Even though it is true that the protection of the right to intellectual property is also stipulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it cannot be regarded as an absolute right that is inviolable. Given that the Belgian court’s injunction would require Scarlet to install a costly, unlimited, and permanent filtering system at its own expense, it results in the infringement of the ISP’s freedom to conducts its business.

From the perspective of the ISP’s customers, the CJEU had no difficulty in highlighting a couple of violations of fundamental rights. First, the filtering system is liable to infringe customers’ personal data because it would involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection of users’ IP addresses. The collection of these IP addresses, which constitute personal data, would be used to identify those involved in sending unlawful content on the network. Second, the Court stressed potential violations of the freedom of information since the filtering system carries the risk of not being able to properly distinguish between unlawful and lawful content. This could block totally lawful communications.

These considerations brought the Court to the conclusion that the filtering system is far from striking a right balance between the various fundamental rights at stake. It is simply inadequate and disproportionate for the purpose envisaged. In addition, it violates a key provision of the e-Commerce Directive that seeks to bring more legal clarity to ISPs. The Court rightly showed overly broad filtering mechanisms the red card. IPR protection online is a worthwhile goal, but the means to achieve it cannot limit the ability to do legitimate business and give blind preference to one fundamental right while severely encroaching upon others. The Commission is set to evaluate the application of the e-Commerce Directive in December. No matter what it will propose, the CJEU’s judgment should be an important point of reference.

Related Articles

CCIA, NetChoice Ask To Block Texas Social Media Law From Taking Effect During Appeal

Sep 29, 2022

Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association has asked a federal appeals court to prevent Texas’s controversial social media law from taking effect ahead of a potential Supreme Court hearing of the case. CCIA along with its partner NetChoice argue that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is likely to be overturned because…

CCIA Statement on Florida’s Petition To U.S. Supreme Court In Social Media Law Case

Sep 21, 2022

Washington – Florida has filed a legal brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case challenging its social media law, which an appeals court struck down in May as unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled unanimously in a 3-0 decision that Florida’s social media censorship law violated the First…

European Media Freedom Act: Fight Against Disinformation and Illegal Content Requires Balanced Relationship Between Media and Online Platforms

Sep 16, 2022

Brussels, BELGIUM — The European Media Freedom Act presented by the European Commission earlier today seeks to introduce new rules to safeguard the independence and pluralism of Europe’s media. The “must-carry” obligation included in the proposal, however, could be abused to force social media and other online platforms to spread disinformation or illegal content, the…