Right To Forget Against Internet Archive

OLG Hamburg 7 U 29 / 12

The higher regional court of Hamburg, Germany, recently handed down a judgement that in its essential legal findings could well be adopted by courts across the EU in the future.

The court had to decide a case in which a national newspaper maintained on its website also an online archive containing articles of an older past. The plaintiff requested the deletion of an article in that archive about a closed investigation into a potential criminal offence by him, which  could be found by simply typing his name in an online search engine.

Weighing up the newspaper's protection under freedom of information and the plaintiffs right of privacy not to be infinitely associated with a potential crime the investigation into which had been closed by just typing his name into any online search engine the court found that both rights are protected if it is only possible and thereby permitted to find the article about the investigation by undertaking a much more detailed search online by place, date and other circumstances and not just by typing his name. 

Data Protection And ICO Transferred To Department For Culture, Media and Sport

The policy responsibility for data protection and the sponsorship of the UK Information Commissioner's Office ICO has been transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 17th of September, previously held by the Ministry of Justice. The Information Commissioner commented that it made sense  for the ICO to be connected to debates around the digital economy for which the Department for Culture Media and Sport has responsibility.

ICO's First Enforcement Action Against Google for Right To Be Forgotten

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has made what appears to be its first "right to be forgotten enforcement action against Google Inc. The ICO issued the notice on 18 August 2015, ordering Google to remove nine links to news stories about an individual’s criminal offence committed almost a decade ago.
Google has 35 days from the date of the enforcement notice to remove the links from its search results when the individual’s name is searched, or, Google will face further enforcement action. Google has the right to appeal to the U.K.’s First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) against the notice but, so far, the company has refused to comment on whether or not it will appeal.

Adblock Software Is Legal

District Court Hamburg 416 HK O 159 / 14District Court Munich 37 O 11637 / 14

The German Adblock Plus software of Eyo GmbH, which is freely downloadable from the internet and which enables the internet user to block advertisements of the website being visited, has caused major German media companies such as RTL, ProSieben Sat1, Axel Springer, Zeit Online or Handelsblatt to take legal actions at the district courts in Hamburg, Munich and Cologne. The legal issues mainly touch on unfair competition, copyright infringement and anti-trust violation. As these legal matters are quite similarly regulated across EU member states by EU law the decisions by the German courts and argumentations contained in them are of interest for English jurisdiction.

The Hamburg District Court went first and found that the company does not infringe the rules of fair competition because it allows the user of the software to freely decide by its setting options whether to block advertisements at all or particular ones. It is therefore the user who blocks the ad.

The Munich District Court followed the argument of the judges in Hamburg and added that the company does not take part in an infringement by the user of the website owner´s (plaintiffs´) copyrights. The mere visit of the free websites while using the adblock software does not constitute the infringing use of copyrights contained in the website. Also, the company does not violate anti-trust law because its software has not a major market share at this juncture. 

ECJ Confirms 210m Euros Fine Against LG Display For Pricing Cartel

ECJ C - 227 / 14 P

The European Court of Justice confirmed the fine of 210 million Euros issued by the European Commission against LG Display in 2010 for creating a pricing cartel for LCD panels in the years 2001 to 2006. 

One of the main questions in this proceeding was if LG Display, which was owned by LG Electronics and Philips, was only an entity of another group company and hence its sales to its mother companies for a fixed price was only an internal matter rather then the external creation of a pricing cartel.

The court found that LG Display did not form a vertically integrated group company with LG Electronics and Philips as the various levels of production and sales were not integrated into one. The sales to those mother companies by LG Display were therefore to be seen as transactions with external parties which had to comply with unfair competition law.

UK Serious Fraud Office Fined For Breach Of Data Protection

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a fine of £180,000 against the Serious Fraud Office after a witness in a serious fraud, bribery and corruption investigation was mistakenly sent evidence relating to 64 other people involved in the case.

The Serious Fraud Office’s investigation focused on allegations that senior executives at BAE Systems had received payments, including two properties worth over £6 million, as part of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The case was closed in February 2010.

Non-Pecuniary Damages For Data Protection Violation

Google Inc. v. Vidal, Hann, Bradshaw [2015] EWCA Civ 311

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether individuals could claim compensation for damage and distress caused by Google's data protection violation. 
Three individuals complained that Google had collected private information about their internet usage without their knowledge or consent.

The Court held that Article 23 of the EU Directive 95/46/EC does not distinguish between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and therefore Section 13 of the Data Protection Act had to be interpreted accordingly.