Volume IV

Issue : 6: March 23, 2006

• Lawsuit Attacks Googles Secret Formula
• Court Rules Unauthorized Website Scraping May Be Actionable as Unjust Enrichment
• BC Court Finds Source Code Within Definition of Software at Time of Sale of Business
• UK Court Ruled ISPs Not Liable For Posting of Defamatory Content
• Canadian Cyberstalker Jailed
• OPC Issues Guidelines for the Use of Video Cameras in Public Spaces
• Class Action Launched Against Music Labels Alleging Price Fixing in Online Market
• Study Concludes RFID Tags May Be Vulnerable To Viruses
• European Commission Begins Public Inquiry into RFID Tag Technology
• OPP Cracks Down on Wireless Internet Theft
• Sony Faces Setback in Patent Battle Over Vibrotactile Technology
• Google Settles Click Fraud Suit For $90 Million
• Quebec Company Fined for Evading Private Copying Levies

Home > Volume IV > Issue 6: March 23, 2006 > UK Court Ruled ISPs Not Liable For Posting of Defamatory Content

UK Court Ruled ISPs Not Liable For Posting of Defamatory Content

On March 10, 2006, the English High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) rendered a significant decision regarding liability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for the content posted by their clients. The claimant argued that three of the defendants (individuals) had posted defamatory statements about him on the Internet. In addition to naming the three individuals, the claimant also named their ISPs. The ISPs in question had been used by the individual defendants to access the Internet and to post the defamatory material. This decision is significant because it required the Court to grapple with the distinction between an ISPs’ role as either a publisher, or distributor of information.

The three ISP defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim as against them. They argued that their involvement with the individual defendants was analogous to that of the post office; they simply could not be expected to review every posting made by their clients. They submitted that they had the right to be an intermediary without an obligation to filter content.

Justice Eady agreed with the submissions of the ISPs, and dismissed the claim. In doing so, the Court held that it would be inappropriate for an ISP to be liable without an opportunity to prevent the defamatory publication at issue; a duty of care would arise when the ISP had knowing involvement in the process of publication. In this instance, there was a lack of knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words. The Court relied on longstanding authority for the proposition that it is simply not enough that a person play a passive instrumental role in the publication process. In addition, the ISPs have placed an onus on the uploading customer of ensuring that content was not defamatory through their user agreements. The court held that persons who truly fulfill no more than a passive medium for communication cannot be characterized as publishers.

For a copy of the decision, visit:

Bunt v. Tilley