120 See generally Timofeeva supra note 88 noting examples of cases in Germany

120 see generally timofeeva supra note 88 noting

This preview shows page 27 - 29 out of 36 pages.

120. See generally Timofeeva, supra note 88 (noting examples of cases in Germany, France and Italy, and suggesting that "the effects principle as applied in asserting jurisdiction in Internet content controversies is employed most broadly, capable to justify almost anything"). [Vol. 30:1
Image of page 27
THE "RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN" recent criminal prosecution of Google executives in Italy, 12 1 the Italian court held that, because at least some of the processing of information (a video of a child with Down's Syndrome being abused by other youths) took place in Italy, the court could properly exercise jurisdiction. Thus, if "processing" of "personal data" through EU "equipment" 122 includes a user's downloading of Internet content somewhere in Europe, 12 3 the European Union theoretically could exer- cise world-wide jurisdiction over Internet actors. 124 The disparity of views on the reach of jurisdiction over Internet-related ac- tivities can produce uncertainty, additional cost (in responding to varying stand- ards) and unnecessary barriers to trade (as firms may be deterred from activities that place them at risk of regulation in unfavorable jurisdictions). 12 5 In addition, the risk that judicial and administrative orders in one jurisdiction may not be en- forced in other countries may tend to deter effective implementation of rules. 126 121. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano, 24 febbraio 2010, Foro it. II 2010, 5, 279 (It.), . 122. Christopher Kuner, Data Protection Law And International Jurisdiction On The Internet Part 2, at 3, 2009, [Note: the link is temporarily down. I would say just leave it,as this]. (EU concepts of "personal data" and "data processing" are "interpreted very expansively, which "increases their jurisdictional scope"). 123. See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 5/2009 on Online Social Network- ing 01189/09/EN WP 163 (June 12, 2009), ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163 en.pdf ("The provisions of the Data Protection Directive apply to [social networking systems] providers in most cases, even if their headquarters are located outside of the EEA. The Article 29 Working Party refers to its earlier opin- ion on search engines for further guidance on the issues of establishment and use of equipment as determinants for the applicability of the Data Protection Directive and the rules subsequently trig- gered by the processing of IP addresses and the use of cookies"). 124. See Kuner, supra note 122, at 3 (noting that EU use of "equipment" as basis for exercise of jurisdiction "most controversial," because connection to the European Union may be very limited). 125. See Brummer, supra note 119, at 112 ("extraterritorial regulation, even when justifiable, generates costs," as foreign firms "must adjust to new standards or move to other jurisdictions to avoid a law's regulatory effect;" extraterritorial regulation also "often erodes [a country's] reputation in the international community;" as a result, other regulators and courts "may decide to refrain from cooperating with [the regulating country] or helping it.achieve
Image of page 28
Image of page 29

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 36 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture