DUTCH COURT UPHOLDS BAN ON LADBROKES INTERNET GAMBLING
Gambling operator Ladbrokes, owned by Hilton, cannot offer
Internet-based betting services in the Netherlands,
according to a ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court that upheld
a ban by a lower court. Gambling is regulated under Dutch
law, and only organizations with a special permit can offer
services. Ladbrokes, which does not have a permit, is
offering its services on the Internet and through call
centres operated outside the Netherlands. The Supreme Court
noted that the gambling site may use geolocation software to
ban Dutch users from accessing their site. Dutch decision at
<http://ladbrokesdecision.notlong.com/>
Coverage at
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050221/80/fcxg6.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1419838,00.html
[Source BNA newsletter]
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
Some recent UK Internet jurisdiction cases...
"Online defamation: where a website hit packs a real punch"
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/
BF_NEWSART/VIEW.ASP?Q=BF_NEWSART_105552
"Libel - Abuse of Process - Jameel Vs Dow Jones Inc"
"... the case of Jameel v Dow Jones Inc brings an important restriction on the right of Claimants to sue in this jurisdiction (which is amongst the most Claimant-friendly regimes in the world for libel). Previously, as long as a Claimant could show publication to one person in this jurisdiction, he could bring an action for libel here. This created the difficult scenario for online publishers (e.g. any website owner) of facing claims in England brought by foreign individuals or companies in respect of publications which in reality had little to do with England. The Jameel case was a good example, a Saudi individual suing a US publisher in this jurisdiction on the basis that the website was accessible from England and that he (the Claimant) had some level of reputation here. It emerged in evidence that, in fact, only five people had accessed the website from England, including the Claimant himself and two of his legal advisors.
The Court of Appeal indicated that it will no longer allow this sort of claim. It held that the costs of the case would have been completely disproportionate to the benefit which the Claimant could have acheived and the action was therefore struck out as an abuse of process. The decision is of some comfort to website owners, but is unlikely to impact claims where the Claimant does have some genuine connection to this jurisdiction and can show that the defamatory words have been read by more than a minimal number of people."
From http://www.legalday.co.uk/
lexnex/eversheds/eversheds05/e80180205.htm
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/POOLED/ARTICLES/
BF_NEWSART/VIEW.ASP?Q=BF_NEWSART_105552
"Libel - Abuse of Process - Jameel Vs Dow Jones Inc"
"... the case of Jameel v Dow Jones Inc brings an important restriction on the right of Claimants to sue in this jurisdiction (which is amongst the most Claimant-friendly regimes in the world for libel). Previously, as long as a Claimant could show publication to one person in this jurisdiction, he could bring an action for libel here. This created the difficult scenario for online publishers (e.g. any website owner) of facing claims in England brought by foreign individuals or companies in respect of publications which in reality had little to do with England. The Jameel case was a good example, a Saudi individual suing a US publisher in this jurisdiction on the basis that the website was accessible from England and that he (the Claimant) had some level of reputation here. It emerged in evidence that, in fact, only five people had accessed the website from England, including the Claimant himself and two of his legal advisors.
The Court of Appeal indicated that it will no longer allow this sort of claim. It held that the costs of the case would have been completely disproportionate to the benefit which the Claimant could have acheived and the action was therefore struck out as an abuse of process. The decision is of some comfort to website owners, but is unlikely to impact claims where the Claimant does have some genuine connection to this jurisdiction and can show that the defamatory words have been read by more than a minimal number of people."
From http://www.legalday.co.uk/
lexnex/eversheds/eversheds05/e80180205.htm
Welcome
Welcome to Legal Regulation of the Internet - LWN117
The course starts on Monday evening this week.
To see the study guide, go to www.geocities.com/swinsonlaw/
Enjoy the course!
The course starts on Monday evening this week.
To see the study guide, go to www.geocities.com/swinsonlaw/
Enjoy the course!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...