Is Facebook carrying on business in Australia

 A recent decision in Australia, concerning whether Facebook could be served in California, was decided by the Federal Court of Australia.  This case arises out of a privacy action brought against Facebook by ACMA in relation to the Cambridge Analytics issues.

"It might be added that the means by which entities carry on business are constantly evolving. Much of the case law in which the concept has been discussed was decided long before the technological advances which underpin many modern forms of commerce. Ultimately, the question whether a particular entity carries on business, and does so in a particular place, is determined by reference to the particular facts. 

The Commissioner submitted that she had established a prima facie case that Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia through a combination of two matters: first, through the agency of Facebook Ireland; and secondly, through certain activities for which Facebook Inc was directly responsible in Australia. ...

Rather, the evidence on this application suggests that, to the extent Facebook Ireland carried on business in Australia, it was carrying on its own business. The evidence adduced on this application and the inferences available to be drawn do not sufficiently allow for a possible conclusion that Facebook Ireland was also carrying on Facebook Inc’s business to warrant permitting service out of the jurisdiction.

However, for the reasons given next, the Commissioner has established a sufficient prima facie case to warrant exposing Facebook Inc to litigation in Australia on the basis that Facebook Inc directly carried on business in Australia. On its case, a part of Facebook Inc’s business was to provide services to Facebook Ireland, including the processing activities referred to earlier. I am satisfied that there is a prima facie case that Facebook Inc carried out sufficient activity in Australia in its business of providing services to Facebook Ireland for a conclusion to be available that Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(b) of the Privacy Act. ...

I am satisfied that the Commissioner has established a prima facie case, in the required sense, that Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(b). In summary, the Commissioner has established a sufficient prima facie case that Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia which included providing services to Facebook Ireland."

Australian Information Commissioner v Facebook Inc (No 2) [2020] FCA 1307

Customer does not have property in a telephone number

A recent dispute between two taxi companies confirms that a telephone number is not property and is not owned by the telco customer.

"Relevantly, the terms confirm that the customer does not own or have any legal interest or goodwill in any telephone number issued to the customer. The terms also permit the customer to “transfer” a telephone number to another person with the prior consent of Telstra."

Manly Warringah Cabs (Trading) Co-operative Limited v Sydney Taxis Pty Ltd, in the matter of Sydney Taxis Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1336

Compare this domain name decision:  Multi-National Concepts Pty Ltd v. 1300 Directory Pty Ltd

Data law released in Australia

The Office of the National Data Commissioner has released an exposure draft of the Data Availability and Transparency Bill for public comment. - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-16/government-draft-law-share-personal-data-between-agencies/12666792)

 More information and the draft bill is available here: https://www.datacommissioner.gov.au/exposure-draft/dat

 

The objects of this law are to:

(a)  promote better availability of public sector data; and

(b)  enable consistent safeguards for sharing public sector data; and

(c)  enhance integrity and transparency in sharing public sector data; and

(d)  build confidence in the use of public sector data; and

(e)  establish institutional arrangements for sharing public sector data.

The impact of AI on IP

The UK Intellectual Property Office has announced a call for views on artificial intelligence and intellectual property. In particular, the UK IPO wants to hear about the implications that AI might have for IP policy, and, likewise, what impact IP might have on AI. 

See the full consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views

The consultation closes on 11 November 2020.

Targeting Social Media Users

On Monday September 7, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued draft Guidelines 8/2020 on the targeting of social media users.

The Draft Guidelines have far-reaching implications for social media platforms, advertisers, and adtech companies, as they will result in a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders, and establish rules for consent.

Article here.

Australian Cyber Security Seminar

 Watch Seminar Here.

Defamation By Liking

STOLTENBERG V BOLTON; LODER V BOLTON [2020] NSWCA 45 (20 MARCH 2020) (MACFARLAN JA AT [1], GLEESON JA AT [2], BRERETON JA AT [250])

The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in respect of a first instance decision of the Supreme Court that found a series of posts and comments about the former Mayor of the Narrabri Shire Council made on a Facebook page were defamatory. 

The trial judge found that a comment endorsing a defamatory post was sufficient to attract liability as a secondary publisher of the defamatory post. 

On Appeal, the court agreed that the principles of secondary publication are well established, and refused leave to appeal.

Fake Reviews!

Online odd jobs platform Service Seeking has been fined $600,000 for falsely representing that reviews on its platform were written by customers when in fact they were written by the businesses themselves.

See ACCC release:  https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/service-seeking-to-pay-penalty-for-misleading-online-‘customer’-reviews

Queensland Privacy Review and Law Reform Report

Today, the Queensland Law Reform Commission published a final report, Report No 77, Review of Queensland’s laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies.

https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/653322/QLRC-Report-77-online.pdf

The Report includes a draft bill:  DRAFT SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BILL 2020

Facebook in Australia?

Facebook claims it can’t be sued by Aussie privacy watchdog

In a court hearing on Friday, 26 June 202, US-based Facebook has argued that it does not carry on business in Australia despite users in Australia accessing its website, calling for the dismissal of action brought by the Australian Information Commissioner over alleged privacy breaches and Cambridge Analytics.

French High Court Overrules Takedown Law

The French Constitutional Council struck down critical provisions of a law passed by France’s parliament last month to combat online hate speech.

The law had put the onus for analysing content solely on tech platforms such as Facebook without the involvement of a judge, within a very short time frame, and with the threat of hefty penalties.

Decision (in French of course)

NY Times article

Software Applications Hard to Patent in Australia

The decision today of the Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt  further clarifies the position in relation to whether a computer implemented method can be patentable in Australia.  

The decision follows a series of decisions considering similar issues, which each focus on whether particular software can be the subject of a patent.  In summary, the Full Court finds that the software in question in this case, which related to a method of presenting targeted advertising to a consumer, was not a patentable invention, as it was merely a method for using the well known and understood functions of a computer.

The decision reinforces the fact that a method which gets a computer to do something it has not done before is not patentable – to be patentable the method would have to enable the computer to do something which it was previously unable to do. 

The law of patentable subject matter in Australia is illogical and discriminates against inventors who implement their inventions in software.

See https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0086