Facebook suffers major legal blow after top EU court rules countries can order online platforms to remove defamatory content worldwide

Facebook suffers major legal blow after top EU court rules countries can order online platforms to remove defamatory content worldwide

European Court of Justice said countries can order platforms to remove content

Defeat for Facebook as could increase responsibility for 'harmful' online posts

EU law 'does not preclude' courts from ordering content to be blocked globally

By FAITH RIDLER FOR MAILONLINE

Facebook and other online platforms can be ordered to remove illegal content and block access to it worldwide, a top European Union court has ruled.

The European Court of Justice's landmark decision on Thursday means any individual country in the EU can restrict global access to material declared as illegal. 

European Union law 'does not preclude' courts from ordering 'the removal of information or to block access worldwide,' a statement by the court said.

Facebook said the judgement, which cannot be appealed, 'undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country.' 

It also deplored the obligation to track down 'equivalent' content that also contains offensive or hateful language.

The decision will be considered a victory for EU regulators, who want to see US tech giants - such as Facebook and Twitter - meet tightened European standards over hate speech and offensive online content. 

A statement from the ECJ said: 'EU law does not preclude a host provider such as Facebook from being ordered to remove identical and, in certain circumstances, equivalent comments previously declared to be illegal.

'In addition EU law does not preclude such an injunction from producing effects worldwide, within the framework of the relevant international law which it is for Member States to take into account'.

Internet companies would only be forced to take action worldwide when ordered to do so by a court in EU countries - and not by governments, for example. That means any requests would have to go through a longer procedure than a simple complaint to a regulator. 

The case was initially brought to an Austrian court by Greens party politician Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, who sued Facebook to remove a news story that she considered libelous and insulting. 

A Facebook user had shared an online news story related to her support for refugees that featured a picture of her. 

An Austrian court ruled in favour of Glawischnig-Piesczek, before referring the case to the EU's top court for an interpretation of a rule that said online platforms are not liable for illegal content they are unaware of, so long as they act swiftly to remove or block it once they are informed.

The judgement, delivered by the European Court of Justice, ruled that EU law does not prevent countries from ordering websites - such as Facebook - to remove 'unlawful' information.

It added that Member States are not prohibited from ordering an online platform to 'remove information covered by the injunction' or to block access to that content worldwide.

Last week, the same court decided that Google was not legally compelled to apply the EU's strict 'right to be forgotten' rules globally, in a victory for the search giant.

Responding to the decision, a Facebook spokeswoman said: 'At Facebook, we already have Community Standards which outline what people can and cannot share on our platform, and we have a process in place to restrict content if and when it violates local laws.

Facebook said the ruling 'undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country' (stock image) +3

Facebook said the ruling 'undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country' (stock image)

'This ruling goes much further. It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country.

'It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is 'equivalent' to content that has been found to be illegal.

'In order to get this right, national courts will have to set out very clear definitions on what "identical" and "equivalent" means in practice.

'We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach, to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.' 

Glawischnig-Piesczek hailed the decision 'a historic success for human rights against web giants'. 'It in no way infringes freedom of opinion,' she said. 

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a lobby group including members such as Amazon, Facebook and Google, said Thursday's decision could infringe the right to free speech.

'The ruling essentially allows one country or region to decide what Internet users around the world can say and what information they can access,' said CCIA Europe senior manager Victoria de Posson. 

'What might be considered defamatory comments about someone in one country will likely be considered constitutional free speech in another. Few hosting platforms, especially startups, will have the resources to implement elaborate monitoring systems.' 

Online giants including Google's YouTube have so-far agreed to voluntarily take down hateful or dangerous content, including those linked to terrorism, within 24 hours.

However, the EU is expected to propose tougher Europe-wide measures including fines if Facebook and others fail to comply with orders.