In the tiny Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a tiny branch of the corporate king, Amazon. It subjects its customers to buying their goods under Luxembourg law. Is that fair? And what happens to Amazon’s choice of law after it is has been forced through the latticed-meshes of six pieces of EU legislation which determine the applicable national law?
Continue readingCategory Archives: E-Commerce
Case C-160/15, GS Media – Porn! Hyperlinked and Hyperleaked!
“Porn! Hyperlinked and Hyperleaked! Dutch Supreme Court Stymied! And now the EU Law Radar Report all you IP lawyers have been waiting for” Click for
Continue readingCase A-1/15, The Canada-EU ‘PNR’ Agreement – contrary to the EU Charter?
Canada and the EU have negotiated a new Passenger Name Record Agreement. A plank of the Agreement involves the transfer and processing of data. The European Parliament is asking the CJEU for a legal opinion on the compatibility of that Agreement with the EU Charter.
Continue readingCase C-582/14, Breyer – seeing the logs from the trees in privacy law
Behind a website, there may be a log. This can record which pages have been viewed, when, and by which dynamic IP address. The legal question is whether this is a processing of ‘personal data’ under the EU’s ‘data processing’ Directive 95/46/EC?
Continue readingCase C-484/14, McFadden – a mere conduit?
If a person offers non-password-protected access to the Internet, and an unknown user passes a piece of copyright-infringing music over that Internet connection, then can the person offering the Internet access be absolved of legal liability on the basis that he is but a ‘mere conduit’ under the EU’s ‘E-Commerce’ Directive 2000/31/EC?
Continue readingCase C-230/14, Weltimmo – regulatory competence over websites
If a Slovakian company runs a website that advertises Hungarian homes for sale, and Hungarian residents submit their personal data to the company’s website server, then in the event of the Slovakian company breaching data protection laws, does the Hungarian Data Protection Authority retain any regulatory competence to ensure that Hungarian data protection law is complied with? Or should the Hungarian Authority simply have requested its Slovakian counterpart to take action against the Slovakian company?
Continue readingCase C-362/14, Schrems – does a ‘safe harbour’ shelter states that deprive EU citizens of their EU Charter rights?
If the EU Commission deems a non-EU state to be a ‘safe harbour’ for the purposes of data processing, then personal data about EU citizens can be sent to companies in that non-EU state. This is not new. For example, in 2000 the EU Commission had decided that the USA was a ‘safe harbour’. However, in 2013 Edward Snowden made a series of revelations concerning the USA’s blanket interception of Internet and telecoms systems. These revelations have generated a question of EU law. Namely, can an EU Member State’s national data protection regulator now disregard the EU Commission’s finding that the USA is a ‘safe harbour’, and do so on the basis that the USA’s laws and practices do not adequately protect and respect an EU citizen’s EU Charter rights to privacy and data protection?
Continue readingCase C-362/14, Schrems – does a ‘safe harbour’ shelter states that deprive EU citizens of their EU Charter rights?
If the EU Commission deems a non-EU state to be a ‘safe harbour’ for the purposes of data processing, then personal data about EU citizens can be sent to companies in that non-EU state. This is not new. For example, in 2000 the EU Commission had decided that the USA was a ‘safe harbour’. However, in 2013 Edward Snowden made a series of revelations concerning the USA’s blanket interception of Internet and telecoms systems. These revelations have generated a question of EU law. Namely, can an EU Member State’s national data protection regulator now disregard the EU Commission’s finding that the USA is a ‘safe harbour’, and do so on the basis that the USA’s laws and practices do not adequately protect and respect an EU citizen’s EU Charter rights to privacy and data protection?
Continue readingCase C-74/14, Eturas – computerised cartels and limits on price discounts
In Lithuania, a travel agency ran a computerised online travel system which offered customers various package tours. However, when it came to offering customers discounts on the price of their holiday, the computer system put a ceiling on the maximum amount of discount which a customer could be offered. It was a computerised booking system that was used by many travel agents. Is this not an example of price-fixing among members of a concerted practice and thus contrary to Article 101 TFEU?
Continue readingCase C-41/14, Christie’s France – the single market in reselling art works ‘Going! Going! Gone!’
When original works of art are resold, the EU’s artists’ resale right Directive 2001/84/EC requires that a royalty is paid to the author of the work by the seller. The Directive goes on to allow either the seller or professional sellers, such as art galleries, to share the liability for paying the royalty in accordance with national law. In this case, a French auction house decided to change its terms and conditions so that the buyer, and not the seller, became liable to pay the royalty. Can contract derogate from the seller’s obligation to pay the royalty that is enshrined in the Directive?
Continue reading