Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

LinkedIN

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to act as one of the strongest legal protections that social media companies have to avoid being saddled with crippling damage awards based on the misdeeds of their users.The strong protections afforded by Section 230(c) were recently reaffirmed by Judge Caproni of the Southern District of New York, in <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2017cv00932/468549/21/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Herrick v. Grindr</a>. The case involved a dispute between the social networking platform <a href="https://www.grindr.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grindr</a> and an individual who was maliciously targeted through the platform by his former lover. For the unfamiliar, Grindr is mobile app directed to gay and bisexual men that, using geolocation technology, helps them to connect with other users who are located nearby.Plaintiff Herrick alleged that his ex-boyfriend set up several fake profiles on Grindr that claimed to be him. Over a thousand users responded to the impersonating profiles. Herrick’s ex‑boyfriend, pretending to be Herrick, would then direct the men to Herrick’s’ work-place and home. The ex-boyfriend, still posing as Herrick, would also tell these would-be suitors that Herrick had certain rape fantasies, that he would initially resist their overtures, and that they should attempt to overcome Herrick’s initial refusals. The impersonating profiles were reported to Grindr (the app’s operator), but Herrick claimed that Grindr did not respond, other than to send an automated message.Herrick then sued Grindr, claiming that the company was liable to him because of the defective design of the app and the failure to police such conduct on the app. Specifically, Herrick alleged that the Grindr app lacked safety features that would prevent bad actors such as his former boyfriend from using the app to impersonate others. Herrick also claimed that Grindr had a duty to warn him and other users that it could not protect them from harassment stemming from impersonators.Grindr moved to dismiss Herrick’s suit under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act</a> (CDA). Section 230 provides that “no provider or users of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In order for the Section 230 safe harbor to apply, the defendant invoking the safe harbor must prove each of the following: (1) it “is a provider . . . of an interactive computer service; (2) the claim is based upon information provided by another information content provider; and (3) the claim would treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of that information.”With respect to each of the numerous different theories of liability asserted by Herrick—other than the claim of copyright infringement for hosting his picture without his authorization—the court found that either Herrick failed to state a claim for relief or the claim was subject to Section 230 immunity.Regarding the first prong of the Section 230 test, the court swiftly rejected Herrick’s claim that Grindr is not an interactive computer service as defined in the CDA. The court held that it is a distinction without a difference that the Grindr service is accessed through a smart phone app rather than a website.With respect to Herrick’s products liability, negligent design and failure to warn claims, the court found that they were all predicated upon content provided by another user of the app, in this case Herrick’s ex-boyfriend, thus satisfying the second prong of the Section 230 test. Any assistance, including algorithmic filtering, aggregation and display functions, that Grindr provided to the ex was “neutral assistance” that is available to good and bad actors on the app alike.The court also found that the third prong of the Section 230 test was satisfied. For Herrick’s claims to be successful, they would each result in Grindr being held liable as the “publisher or speaker” of the impersonating profiles. The court noted that liability based upon the failure to incorporate adequate protections against impersonating or fake accounts is “just another way of asserting that Grindr is liable because it fails to police and remove impersonating content.”Moreover, the court observed that decisions to include (or not) methods of removal of content are “editorial choices” that are one of many functions of being a publisher, as are the decisions to remove or not to remove any content at all. So, because choosing to remove content or to let it stay on an app is an editorial choice, finding Grindr liable based on its choice to let the impersonating profiles remain would be finding Grindr liable as if it were the publisher of that content.The court further held that liability for failure to warn would require treating Grindr as the “publisher” of the impersonating profiles. The court noted that the warning would only be necessary because Grindr does not remove content and found that requiring Grindr to post a warning about the potential for impersonating profiles or harassment would be indistinguishable from requiring Grindr to review and supervise the content itself. Reviewing and supervising content is, the court noted, a traditional role for publishers. The court held that, because the theory underlying the failure to warn claims depended upon Grindr’s decision not to review impersonating profiles before publishing them—which the court described as an editorial choice—liability would depend upon treating Grindr as the publisher of the third-party content.In holding that Herrick failed to state a claim for failure to warn, the court distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s 2016 decision, <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/31/12-56638.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc</a>. In that case, an aspiring model posted information about herself on a networking website, <a href="https://www.modelmayhem.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ModelMayhem.com</a>, that is directed to people in the modeling industry and hosted by the defendant. Two individuals found the model’s profile on the website, contacted the model through means other than the website, and arranged to meet with her in person, ostensibly for a modeling shoot. Upon meeting the model, the two men sexually assaulted her.The court viewed Internet Brands’ holding as limited to instances in which the “duty to warn arises from something other than user-generated content.” In Internet Brands, the proposed warning was about bad actors who were using the website to select targets to sexually assault, but the men never posted their own profiles on the site. Also, the website operator had prior warning about the bad actors from a source external to the website, rather than from user-generated content uploaded to the site or its review of site-hosted content.In contrast, here, the court noted, the Herrick’s proposed warnings would be about user-generated content and about Grindr’s publishing functions and choices, including the choice not to take certain actions against impersonating content generated by users and the choices not to employ the most sophisticated impersonation detection capabilities. The court specifically declined to read Internet Brands to hold that an ICS “could be required to publish a warning about the potential misuse of content posted to its site.”In addition to claims for products liability, negligent design and failure to warn, the court also dismissed Herrick’s claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and deceptive practices. While Herrick was granted leave to replead a copyright infringement claim based on allegations that Grindr hosted his photograph without his authorization, the court denied Herrick’s request to replead any of the other claims.When Congress enacted Section 230 of the CDA in 1996, it sought to provide protections that would permit online services to thrive without the threat of crippling civil liability for the bad acts of its users. Over 20 years since its passage, the Act has indisputably served that purpose. The array of social media and other online services and mobile apps available today could have barely been imagined in 1996 and have transformed our society. It is also indisputable, however, that for all of the invaluable services now available to us online and through mobile apps, these same services can be seriously misused by wrongdoers. Providers of these services will want to study closely the Herrick and Internet Brands decisions and to keep an eye out for further guidance from the courts regarding the extent to which Section 230 does (Herrick) or does not (Internet Brands) shield providers from “failure to warn” claims.*          *          *For other Socially Aware blog posts regarding the CDA Section 230 safe harbor, please see the following: 2018: Predictions From Socially Aware’s Editors and Contributors; <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2017/02/08/snapchat-section-230-speed-filter-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Snapchat Clocks Section 230 Win in Speed Filter Case</a>; <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/12/15/the-decline-and-fall-of-section-230/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Decline and Fall of Section 230?</a>; <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/12/05/manchanda-v-google/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In a Rough Year for CDA Section 230, Manchanda v. Google Provides Comfort to Website Operators</a>; and <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/11/22/yelp-section-230-still-has-teeth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yelp Case Shows CDA §230 Still Has Teeth</a>.

buckley_janie_blog_150x150.png

buckley_janie_common_640x280.jpg

buckley_janie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

buckley_janie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

buckley_janie_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Janie Buckley is a Litigation  associate in Morrison Foerster’s New York office.
Ms. Buckley earned her J.D. magna cum laude from New York  University School of Law and was elected to the Order of t

Janie Buckley

Janie C. Buckley

L.W. v. Snap Inc.,  675 F. Supp. 3d 1087 

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea , 2021 WL 3038402 

In re Maxus Energy Corp.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC

NFL Enterprises LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v WebMD Health Corp. 2017 WL 6610411  

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.

Komag, Inc. v. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

Asante Techs. Inc. v. PMC–Sierra, Inc.

Biovail Corp. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt. 2009 WL 2844404 

Multi–Faceted Investigation of University Grants

Confidential International Arbitrations

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

gettyimages-667006530_small-300x225.jpg

Lawsuit Against Online Dating App Grindr Dismissed Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Lawsuit Against Online Dating App Grindr Dismissed Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to act as one of the strongest legal protections that social media companies have to avoid being saddled

<div class="container-fluid main"><div class="row body"><div class="body-container "><div class="col-md-8 col-md-push-2 col-sm-12 col-xs-12"><div>The European Union (EU) has made reform of the e-commerce rules in Europe one of its main priorities for 2018.The European Commission has already published two proposed Directives relating to cross-border e-commerce but legislative progress has been slow—a situation that the Commission plans to correct in 2018.The Commission’s stated aim is to establish a more harmonised set of rules for the supply of digital content and sale of online goods across the EU, and to make it easier and less costly for businesses to engage in cross-border commerce. But what most e-commerce providers will focus on is the increased rights for EU consumers, particularly in the context of defects. The new rules will apply to online e-commerce providers, whether EU-based or not.These changes are part of a wider programme of reform affecting all businesses operating in the Technology, Media and Telecoms (TMT) sectors in Europe.BackgroundThe European Union’s 2018 Work Programme sets out a challenging agenda of legislative and regulatory change for the TMT sectors, to be delivered in conjunction with the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy. The Work Programme includes a list of the pending legislation that the Commission wants to have delivered most swiftly to European citizens as part of the DSM strategy. Any business with digital or technology operations in the EU will need to monitor and react to the EU’s planned changes.The Commission launched its DSM strategy in May 2015. We have written a number of articles following the DSM’s progress: at its <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blta8a9799d75acde0d/627317c60cffdf1eb1369e0d/150514eudigitalsinglemarket.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inception</a>, <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt7ca6fae4bd1791f3/6273195723c6cf2a1c3af651/160808digitalsinglemarketstrategy.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one year in</a> and in 2017 following a mid-term review. With the Commission still waiting for a number of its proposals to be delivered, 2018 is a key year in the life of the DSM.The DSM strategy is broken down into three “pillars” and 16 Key Actions. The first “Key Action” is to develop rules to make cross-border e-commerce easier, including harmonised rules on contracts with consumers and other consumer protection when buying online. Two proposed Directives relating to cross-border e-commerce were issued relatively quickly – firstly, a proposed Directive on the supply of digital content (Digital Content Directive) and, secondly, a proposed Directive on online and other distance sales of goods (Online Goods Directive) (together, the “Proposed Directives”).In a 2016 blog post we explored the scope, content and likely impact of the Proposed Directives across the EU generally (and in the UK and Germany specifically). In this alert, we review the progress that has been made so far and look ahead at the likely impact of these Directives in 2018.The Digital Content DirectiveAt present, some EU Member States (such as the UK, the Netherlands and Ireland) have introduced legislation to govern the sale of digital content to consumers; other member states apply existing rules on the sale of goods or services that were not intended for digital content. That makes it very hard to apply EU-wide principles on the sale of digital content. Depending on the member state, the sales contract could be considered as a sales contract, as a services contract or as a rental contract. And then there’s the question of whether consumer sales law is applicable to digital content: in Germany and in Italy, a consumer is protected under consumer sales law when it comes to digital content, and the courts qualify intangible goods as a moveable object; whereas in Norway, the online supply of digital content is considered a service contract, and consumer sales law is not applicable.The draft Digital Content Directive will harmonise the rules that apply to the provision of digital content to EU consumers, including rules on the remedies to which consumers are entitled for allegedly defective content. If any digital content is defective, firstly the EU consumer will be able to request that the defect be fixed – with no time limit on the ability to make that request—and, secondly, the burden of proof is reversed so that it will be the supplier’s responsibility to prove that the defect did not exist at the time of supply. See a more detailed summary <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltfc17d63fe11f5c09/6273195fa1a1dd2aa9f6cb04/160323digitalsinglemarketstrategy.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.The rules would apply: (i) regardless of the method of sale, and (ii) to both digital content sold to the consumer (i.e., licensed on a perpetual basis) and digital content supplied under a temporary licence on a subscription basis. Currently, most EU Member States do not have national consumer protection legislation specifically concerning sales or subscription of digital content to consumers (the issue tends to be covered by sales of goods or services rules).European Council: General ApproachAfter the Commission issued the draft Digital Content Directive in December 2015, there was steady progress through 2016 and various committees debated or “took stock” of the proposal.In March 2017, the European Data Protection Supervisor raised concerns with the proposal – namely that the provision of data as “counter-performance” was problematic (as discussed further below) and that there was a potential overlap in scope with the incoming General Data Protection Regulation.However, the first major development on the Digital Content Directive took place in June 2017, when the European Council clarified the EU’s position on the proposal as follows:<ul><li>Scope. The scope of the Digital Content Directive includes so-called “over-the-top” interpersonal communication services (such as voice and video calling, text messaging, email and social networking), bundle contracts and the processing of personal data. However, the Council recommended that embedded digital content (meaning, digital content or services that are pre-installed in goods such as smart fridges) should be excluded, leaving these issues to be governed by the rules on the sale of goods. Additionally, the Council explicitly stated that the proposal would not affect existing national and EU laws on copyright and related rights. </li><li>Non-conformity. The Digital Content Directive, as initially drafted, allowed subjective conformity criteria (i.e., criteria that are agreed in an individual contract) to prevail over objective conformity criteria (i.e., criteria that are stipulated by law). The Council rejected the idea that subjective conformity takes priority, requiring compliance with both subjective and objective criteria for conformity, unless the latter is expressly waived in advance by the consumer. </li><li>Remedies. The Council suggests that suppliers should have a second chance to supply the digital content or service in certain situations and proposes eliminating the strict hierarchy of remedies for lack of conformity that were initially proposed by the Commission.</li><li>Time limits. The Council proposes both that there should be a one-year time limit in relation to the reversed burden of proof on suppliers and also that any warranty or limitation period relating to the liability of the supplier must be at least two years under applicable domestic law. It stopped short of suggesting that warranty periods should be mandatorily harmonised across the EU.</li></ul>European Parliament: Joint ReportThe next key development took place in November 2017 when the two committees within the European Parliament that are responsible for progressing the proposed Digital Content Directive (being the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Legal Affairs (JURI)) adopted a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bREPORT%2bA8-2017-0375%2b0%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint report</a> on the proposal. A number of compromise amendments to the draft Digital Content Directive were prepared on the basis of the report, of which the main ones were:<ul><li>Emphasis on data protection. The provisions on data protection in the draft Digital Content Directive should be prioritised over the contract law provisions.</li><li>Provision of data as counter-performance. The Digital Content Directive was drafted to cover digital content that is provided for non-monetary consideration, such as when a consumer provides his/her data to a supplier in exchange for access to content. The compromise amendment suggested in the report is to limit the provision of data as counter-performance to only personal data.</li><li>Latent defects. The draft provisions on a supplier’s liability for latent defects were removed, allowing Member States to retain or introduce domestic laws on liability for such defects.</li><li>Non-conformity. Consistent with the Council’s approach, the report suggests that all subjective and objective criteria for conformity must be met, unless the consumer expressly consents to waive compliance with such objective criteria in advance.</li><li>Time limits. Also in keeping with the Council’s approach, a time limit was introduced in connection with the proposed reversal of the burden of proof. However, the report suggests a time limit of two years (rather than the Council’s proposal of one year) and introduces an additional time limit relating to trader liability for defects of one or two years.</li><li>Embedded digital content. The scope of the draft Digital Content Directive was expanded to cover digital content embedded in tangible goods, in contrast to the amendment proposed by the Council.</li></ul>Next StepsThe report was referred to the European Parliament, Council and Commission to commence informal trialogue talks, which are now expected to take place in the first part of 2018.The Online Goods DirectiveThe draft Online Goods Directive will apply new rules to goods sold online or otherwise at a distance to EU consumers. Face-to-face sales are not covered, nor are contracts for the supply of services.The key provisions of the Draft Online Goods Directive include a reversal of the burden of proof (i.e., the onus will be on the seller to prove that any defect didn’t exist at the time of sale) for two years; consumers won’t lose their rights if they don’t inform the seller of a defect within a certain period of time (as is currently the case in some Member States); if the seller is unable or fails to repair or replace a defective product, consumers will have the right to terminate the contract and be reimbursed also in cases of minor defects. See a more detailed summary <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltfc17d63fe11f5c09/6273195fa1a1dd2aa9f6cb04/160323digitalsinglemarketstrategy.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.The draft Directive replaced the Commission’s previous attempt at harmonisation, which took the form of a proposed Regulation on a Common European Sales Law. The EU Parliament’s IMCO published its draft report on the Directive in November 2016, supporting the full harmonisation measures envisaged, but suggesting an expansion of the scope of the Directive to cover offline sales. This was driven by the desire for consistency – the idea that a common set of rules across Member States would be valuable for online, distance and face-to-face sales alike, rather than having a fragmented legislative framework that would vary depending on the method of sale.After publishing its draft report, IMCO tabled over 200 amendments to the draft Online Goods Directive during a committee meeting in January 2017, and more in July 2017 (mostly relating to the expansion of the scope of the draft Directive to offline sales).The Commission subsequently released an amended proposal on 31 October 2017. Although the main elements of the Online Goods Directive were unaltered, the amended proposal did provide for the following noteworthy changes:<ul><li>Offline sales. In alignment with the suggestions in the draft report, the scope of the proposed Directive was expanded to cover offline sales. As a result, Directive 1999/44/EC on consumer sales and guarantees would be fully repealed (whereas before, it would have been only partially amended).</li><li>Second-hand goods. Member States will have the option of narrowing the scope of the Online Goods Directive to exclude contracts for the sale of second-hand goods sold at public auction.</li></ul>Next StepsThe amended proposal has been resubmitted to the European Parliament and Council. We await a decision from the European Economic and Social Committee, after which the European Parliament will need to vote on the proposal at first reading.What Should We Expect in 2018?We will be keeping tabs on the Proposed Directives as they progress under the ordinary legislative procedure, although, because there is no time limit on the first reading stage, it is difficult to predict exactly when we will see movement.It is also difficult to predict the impact of the Proposed Directives on the UK. The UK is, of course, due to leave the EU in March 2019, which is likely to be before the Proposed Directives are implemented. It will therefore be for the UK to decide the extent to which it wishes to reflect the provisions of the final Proposed Directives in national law, if at all. The commercial benefits of harmonisation with EU Member States will need to be weighed carefully against the drawbacks of overhauling consumer laws so soon after the changes introduced by the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015.</div></div></div></div></div>

Autodesk

Alistair Maughan

Proceed To Check Out? The Impact Of 2018 European E-Commerce Reforms