Skip to main content

The European Court of Justice has ruled that Facebook can be forced by member states to remove content declared unlawful.

The Associated Press

The European Union’s highest court ruled Thursday that individual member countries can force Facebook Inc. to remove what they regard as unlawful material from the social network all over the world – a decision experts say could hinder free speech online and put a heavy burden on tech companies.

The European Court of Justice ruling, which cannot be appealed, is seen as a defeat for Facebook and other online platforms and widens the divide over how heavily Europe and the United States seek to regulate technology giants.

It would increase the onus on them to monitor what appears online.

Story continues below advertisement

“It really unleashes a whole new gamut of risk and worries for Facebook in the EU,” said Wedbush Securities managing director Daniel Ives.

Ruling in the case of an Austrian politician who objected to what she regarded as a libellous news story, the European court said internet companies can be forced to take action worldwide to remove objectionable material when ordered to do so by a court in an EU country.

Facebook already removes or otherwise restricts photos and other posts in any given country if the material violates that country’s laws, such as anti-government comments in countries where that is illegal. But the new ruling means Facebook would have to make such material inaccessible globally.

Facebook charged that the decision “undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country.”

While lawmakers in the U.S. are considering tighter regulation of Facebook and other tech giants, politicians in Europe have gone much further on a variety of fronts, including passing stricter data-privacy laws in 2018.

“This shows a sharpening divide between the way the EU is handling privacy and data content versus the U.S.,” Wedbush’s Mr. Ives said. “It poses broader risks for the likes of Google and other big tech companies as the `Brussels versus tech’ battle continues to take hold.”

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, former chairwoman of Austria’s Green Party, had sued Facebook in her home country to remove a news story that she considered libellous and insulting and could be viewed globally. An Austrian court ruled in her favour. The country’s top court then asked the EU to weigh in.

Story continues below advertisement

The same EU court ruled last month that the European Union’s “right to be forgotten” rules – which allow people to ask search engines such as Google to remove outdated or embossing links about themselves, even if they are true – do not apply outside the 28-countrybloc.

Thursday’s ruling is likely to encourage internet platforms to step up their efforts to monitor user content.

Activists at the European Digital Rights organization said that instead of hiring more “content moderators,” companies such as Facebook might have to rely on automatic filters. And those, they warned, might be unable to distinguish between legal and illegal content.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a lobbying group that includes Amazon.com Inc., Facebook and Alphabet Inc.-owned Google, said the ruling could infringe on 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.”

Story continues below advertisement

David Carroll, a professor at Parsons School of Design in New York and a long-time critic of Facebook’s handling of data, said the social network could apply a content “fingerprint” for banned material in the same way it has automated the detection of pornography, child exploitation, terror groups and other things that violate its policies.

“It has plenty of money to spend on infrastructure to comply with international laws,” he said.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies