Scope of platform operator’s liability: three categories of cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61345/1339-7915.2024.3.10Keywords:
platform liability, intermediary liability, causation, remoteness, scope of liability, product liabilityAbstract
Various online platforms play an increasingly crucial role in everyone’s life. Given the growing power of platforms, the question of their liability for harm that may result from intentional or negligent exploitation of the opportunities created by platforms naturally arises.
The aim of the work is to analyze the jurisprudence addressing tort liability of platform operator for the damage caused by the third person while using the platform. The issue is addressed from the perspective of the scope of liability concept (known as ‘remoteness of damage’ in common law countries). The main objective is to conceptualize the factors that make online platform operator responsible for the damage caused by others with the use of opportunities platform creates.
The methodology of the study is based on the analysis of the case law of American courts, judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as EU directives and regulations. The study addresses three distinct categories of cases where the issue of intermediary liability is relevant: violation of fundamental human rights, copyright infringement and product liability.
Conclusions. When assessing the remoteness of the causal link between the actions (omissions) of the platform operator and the damage caused by the user of the platform (or, what is the same, when determining the scope of the platform operator’s liability), one should first consider the degree of control on the part of the platform operator. For transactional platforms, such control is reflected in the influence on the essential terms of transactions concluded via the platform; for media platforms, it is reflected in the possibilities of content moderation, with due regard to the development of technology.
In addition, when determining the scope of liability, a number of economic variables should be taken into account, such as the total social utility of lawful uses of the platform compared to the social disutility of illegal uses of the platform; the accessibility of claims against direct tortfeasors and the cost of proceedings against them as compared to the cost of proceedings against the platform operator; and whether the platform operator is the least cost avoider.
References
Acs, Z.J., Song, A.K., Szerb, L., Audretsch, D.B., & Komlósi, É. (2021). The evolution of the global digital platform economy: 1971–2021. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1629–1659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00561-x.
Devolder, B. (Ed.). (2019). The platform economy : unravelling the legal status of online intermediaries. Intersentia.
Staab, P. (2024). Markets and power in digital capitalism. Manchester University Press,. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526172174.
Statista (April 2024). Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2024, by number of monthly active users. Statista. Retrieved 25 July 2024 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
Buhmann, K., & Olivera, R. (2020). Human rights and social media platforms: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in regard to privacy infringements involving photo posting. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 26(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2020.1802559.
Jørgensen, R.F. (Ed.). (2019). Human rights in the age of platforms. The MIT Press.
Keren-Paz, T. (2023). Egalitarian digital privacy : image-based abuse and beyond (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529214031.
Bloomberg Government (April, 10, 2018). Transcript of Mark Zuckerberg’s Senate hearing. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/.
Frosio, G.F. (Ed.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability. Oxford University Press.
Pappalardo, K. (2023). A new framework for intermediary liability : copyright, causation and control on the internet. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Petkova, B., & Ojanen, T. (Eds.). (2020). Fundamental rights protection online : the future regulation of intermediaries. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Wilman, F. (2020). The responsibility of online intermediaries for illegal user content in the EU and the US. Edward Elgar Publiishing.
Lavi, M. (2020). Do platforms kill? Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 43(2), 477–573.
Bambauer, J.R., & Bambauer, D.E. (2017). Information Libertarianism. California Law Review, 105(2), 335–394. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z31NN40.
Kreimer, S.F. (2006). Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, and the Problem of the Weakest Link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(1), 11–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/40041302.
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021).
A.M v. Omegle.com LLC, No. 3:2021cv01674 – Document 36 (D. Or. 2022).
Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube Inc., YouTube LLC, Google Germany GmbH (C 682/18) and Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG (C 683/18), Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2021.
Mastromatteo v. Italy, no. 37703/97, Judgment of the ECtHR. GC of 24 October 2002.
Filatova-Bilous, N. (2021). Once again platform liability: on the edge of the ‘Uber’ and ‘Airbnb’ cases. Internet Policy Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1559.
Bolger v. Amazon Com LLC (2020), Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, August 13, 2020.
Loomis v. Amazon Com LLC (2021), Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California, April 26, 2021.
Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc. 930 F.3d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 2019).
Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL, (C-434/15), Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017.
Uber France SAS v. Nabil Bensalem, (C-320/16), Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018.
Filatova-Bilous, N., Tsuvina, T., Karnaukh, B. (2024). Digital Platforms’ Practices on Content Moderation: Substantive and Procedural Issues Proposed by DSA. In: Nechyporuk, M., Pavlikov, V., Krytskyi, D. (eds) Integrated Computer Technologies in Mechanical Engineering - 2023. ICTM 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 996. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60549-9_16.
Lefouili, Y., & Madio, L. (2022). The economics of platform liability. European Journal of Law and Economics, 53(3), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-022-09728-7.
Landes, William M. and Lichtman, Douglas Gary, Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 2003, U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 179.
Rosenzweig, P. (2024). Content Moderation and the Least Cost Avoider. Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 125.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Bohdan Karnaukh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
