Europe Opens Door to Lawsuits Over Online Content.

As first reported by Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter, the European Court of Justice issued recently issued a ground breaking ruling giving plaintiffs, no matter where they reside, the right to sue in an EU member state of their choosing over online content that’s alleged to be defamatory or a violation of the plaintiff’s publicity or privacy rights.

In the decision, the court found that material placed online “can be consulted by an indefinite number of Internet users worldwide” and thus causes an impact within borders of the European Union.

The judgment was issued in reference to two cases that were appealed from lower courts. In the first case, a French actor sued Mirror Group Newspapers, (‘MGN”) the publisher of the English tabloid Sunday Mirror, over a defamatory article.  The actor filed his action in Paris court, alleging that MGN violated his privacy and personality rights.

In reaching its decision, the court focused on constitutional precedent that establishes jurisdiction in “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.”

As Gardner points out, the decision raises a host of questions and interesting scenarios:

For instance, can an American actor sue a German publication in the U.K., where libel laws are more plaintiff-friendly, arguing that a story was read online by U.K. readers and harmed the actor’s power to drive box office ticket sales in the country? Can a French musician sue an American publication in France over a story posted online that disturbed his or her privacy rights? Indeed, can an American celebrity sue an American publication in a European court because online material is “ubiquitous” and the celebrity has business there?

The decision is a groundbreaking because it allows individuals to sue anywhere in the EU regardless of whether they or the publication have any real connection to the chosen forum where a complaint is filed.

It remains to be seen, however, whether non-EU courts will enforce these decisions. Nonetheless, the decisions pose interesting considerations for all victims of damaging online content.