French justice rules it has juridiction on Facebook

[zerathule]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ing-case/?_r=0
This is very interesting, as those last years, it used to be a US tribunal ruling it has juridiction on an european matter ...
It's quite funny to see that this is because facebook doesnt allow nuditiy
Now, the court has ruled it has juridiction, it hasnt ruled on the case, but still, it will create an interesting precedent.
Did you have similar rulings in other countries ? what do you think Facebook will do if the court tell them to allow nudity ?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

good, Facebook is not above the law, if they don't like it, they can stay away from France.

Also a company can't just claim only a court in country x state f has jurisdiction over me, if you do business somewhere, you answer to it's laws and customs etc...

Also I'm getting sick of facebook's arrogance

[Sphere]

Also a company can't just claim only a court in country x state f has jurisdiction over me, if you do business somewhere, you answer to it's laws and customs etc...

It's fairly common in contracts to designate where disputes are to be litigated. If this Frenchman didn't like the terms of service he shouldn't have agreed to them.

[Enros]

It's fairly common in contracts to designate where disputes are to be litigated. If this Frenchman didn't like the terms of service he shouldn't have agreed to them.

It's also fairly common for contracts to include items that conflict with the law and are void.

I mean, I'll be the first to say the French government loves abusing human rights, but in this case I think they are protecting them.

[Derpy Hooves]

good, Facebook is not above the law, if they don't like it, they can stay away from France.

Also a company can't just claim only a court in country x state f has jurisdiction over me, if you do business somewhere, you answer to it's laws and customs etc...

Also I'm getting sick of facebook's arrogance

Sounds more like Belgian arrogance about reading TOS.

[Dracula]

French court is right this time.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

terms of service are bs and never trump national laws, would be insane.

Belgium is also preparing a case against facebook since it's new TOS break our national privacy laws.

Adhere to the laws of the country you try to do business in or stay the f out.

[I WUB PUGS]

terms of service are bs and never trump national laws, would be insane, who reads those things anyway?

Belgium is also preparing a case against facebook since it's new TOS break our national privacy laws.

Adhere to the laws of the country you try to do business in or stay the f out.

LOL. I love the "who reads those anyway" defense. Here's a fun exercise, I wonder who has more money for lawyers, Facebook or Belgium?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

LOL. I love the "who reads those anyway" defense. Here's a fun exercise, I wonder who has more money for lawyers, Facebook or Belgium?

It's not just Belgium, in the end the EU could get involved. And it remains simple, if their TOS breaks Belgian privacy laws, they'll be fined, and they'll have to change their TOS for Belgium.

You can't just go, "yeah I as a company decide that these words trump all laws and give me the right to do all kinds of things that your laws don't allow" The arrogance of it is infuriating.

[Simon Cashmere]

It's not just Belgium, in the end the EU could get involved. And it remains simple, if their TOS breaks Belgian privacy laws, they'll be fined, and they'll have to change their TOS for Belgium.

You can't just go, "yeah I as a company decide that these words trump all laws and give me the right to do all kinds of things that your laws don't allow" The arrogance of it is infuriating.

Facebook has presence in all countries in the world. It would be impossible to make their TOS compliant with every country's laws. For example, in Vietnam it is illegal to have encryption on your servers. Should Facebook decrypt its servers for Vietnam? The primary place that Facebook has to comply with is the United States of America and California. Other countries can block Facebook going into their IPs, but changing the TOS for every single country is impossible.

"I'm sorry your Honour, I'd never read the laws regarding murder and so had no idea it was illegal to kill my neighbour."

criminal law and the law of contract between private individuals are very different things. Ignorance of the criminal law is never an excuse, although it would be a mitigation in penalty if a more obscure law. Ignorance of the terms of the contract might be - especially where TOSes are pages and pages long. Paypal has had its TOS declared void as against public policy in a celebrated case.

For example, what if the TOS said 'You grant a loan secured by a mortgage over your house of $1 million USDs, and are personally liable for the difference.' or, 'You appoint the website owner as your attorney to sign all such documents and do all such things as if he were you, including sell or dispose of any property, enter into any transaction...' not reading something buried there which has such profound significance will help you, the terms that are within the document have to be reasonably proportionate to what one would expect to be there. The more far out there the term, the bigger it has to be and not be buried in the fine print, otherwise it will be unenforceable.

Also, the days are not long enough - to read everything. Who has read all of their TOS for their cell phone contract? Not me. What about personal loans. Mortgages. Nobody reads them, and nobody could read them all.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

Facebook has presence in all countries in the world. It would be impossible to make their TOS compliant with every country's laws. For example, in Vietnam it is illegal to have encryption on your servers. Should Facebook decrypt its servers for Vietnam? The primary place that Facebook has to comply with is the United States of America and California. Other countries can block Facebook going into their IPs, but changing the TOS for every single country is impossible.



criminal law and the law of contract between private individuals are very different things. Ignorance of the criminal law is never an excuse, although it would be a mitigation in penalty if a more obscure law. Ignorance of the terms of the contract might be - especially where TOSes are pages and pages long. Paypal has had its TOS declared void as against public policy in a celebrated case.

For example, what if the TOS said 'You grant a loan secured by a mortgage over your house of $1 million USDs, and are personally liable for the difference.' or, 'You appoint the website owner as your attorney to sign all such documents and do all such things as if he were you, including sell or dispose of any property, enter into any transaction...' not reading something buried there which has such profound significance will help you, the terms that are within the document have to be reasonably proportionate to what one would expect to be there. The more far out there the term, the bigger it has to be and not be buried in the fine print, otherwise it will be unenforceable.

Also, the days are not long enough - to read everything. Who has read all of their TOS for their cell phone contract? Not me. What about personal loans. Mortgages. Nobody reads them, and nobody could read them all.

so being big and global puts you above the law in anything not god allmighty America?

[priam11]

LOL. I love the "who reads those anyway" defense. Here's a fun exercise, I wonder who has more money for lawyers, Facebook or Belgium?

Yeah he is every lawyer's wet dream.

Contracts....we need to read no stinkin contracts!

[Dr Zoidberg]

terms of service are bs and never trump national laws, would be insane. who reads those things anyway?

"I'm sorry your Honour, I'd never read the laws regarding murder and so had no idea it was illegal to kill my neighbour."

[tarvu]

"I'm sorry your Honour, I'd never read the laws regarding murder and so had no idea it was illegal to kill my neighbour."

The two are so easily comparable.

I think people learn quite a bit about what the laws of their country are in school, from their parents, and community in general to the point where except for abstract tax laws claiming ignorance really doesn't work (but in some cases it can get a prosecutor to cut you a deal).

On the other hand I am a member of more at least two dozen websites, have had hundreds of electronic devices and installed thousands of instances of software. You read all of those terms of service just in case they are in violating the laws of your country? I mean I assume they are protecting themselves, and maybe outlining how I can use the software but stealing from me or murdering me I would assume is covered by the aforementioned laws of my country and not something I need to check before I click "I agree". Just because I purchase something, or register on a website does that really mean they can now circumvent the law to victimize me?


Real life isn't set in a dystopian science fiction book yet right?

Just checking.

[Dr Zoidberg]

On the other hand I am a member of more at least two dozen websites, have had hundreds of electronic devices and installed thousands of instances of software. You read all of those terms of service just in case they are in violating the laws of your country? I mean I assume they are protecting themselves, and maybe outlining how I can use the software but stealing from me or murdering me I would assume is covered by the aforementioned laws of my country and not something I need to check before I click "I agree". Just because I purchase something, or register on a website does that really mean they can now circumvent the law to victimize me?

Look, I don't read the T&Cs most times either. But not reading them is not an excuse to get out of them. That's my point.

[Simon Cashmere]

There is tension between the terms being more extreme, and knowing them. Say for example the TOS says, any violation of this TOS means you forfeit all real and personal property to the owner of the website, whether you read that or not it is not likely to be enforced. The more drastic the term, the more it has to be drawn to your attention in flashing neon. Courts do not have a lot of time for big companies that bury nasty terms in their TOS. For a contract there also has to be meeting of the minds - if a term is buried in pages of 6 font text, then the court may come to the conclusion there was no contract, because one party did not agree, as they did not know and could not have worked it out. It is a balancing act however.

I referred briefly to the Paypal case which had mandatory arbitration in its TOS. And you might think, well, that had to work...didn't it? No it did not. The arbitration clause in the TOS was considered unconscionable under Californian law and not enforced.

http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law...ombVPaypal.pdf

I could explain a little bit more why if people were interested (and I accept most would not be) but the case is important in showing, maybe your TOS just won't be enforceable....

[Sphere]

This is a interesting case in that FB would be forced to allow content. If this were a painted cherub it could quite possibly run afoul of Australia's draconian child pornography laws. FB would be in a Catch-22, being unable to comply with both jurisdictions at once.

I think it is rather reasonable that since 100% of FB's servers are in the US, and it is a free-to-use service, people should have to file complaints in US courts per the TOS.

[Alastor]

All these TOS/EULA/whatever are abused by the ones issuing them. That is well-known and there are movements to combat it too, not very successfully since the majority of people doesn't care until it's too late. Nevertheless, I think it should be obvious that if a company chooses to do business in a country, that country has a say in what the company does. It doesn't matter if facebook's servers are in America or not. This is a very antiquated attitude. 30 years ago it was basically impossible for a company to do business in a country without having some sort of a physical presence there. That is not the case anymore, that attitude needs to change.

[Sphere]

All these TOS/EULA/whatever are abused by the ones issuing them. That is well-known and there are movements to combat it too, not very successfully since the majority of people doesn't care until it's too late. Nevertheless, I think it should be obvious that if a company chooses to do business in a country, that country has a say in what the company does. It doesn't matter if facebook's servers are in America or not. This is a very antiquated attitude. 30 years ago it was basically impossible for a company to do business in a country without having some sort of a physical presence there. That is not the case anymore, that attitude needs to change.

Well I could direct you to a thread on this forum which would violate a great deal of Iranian law. But I don't think the Islamic Republic of Iran should decide what is and isn't permitted content on twc.

Likewise with FB and the government of France.

There are ways of asking courts to block internet sites deemed incompatible with local law. I think if France has problems with FB it should use this avenue, rather than set a precedent that FB is liable to the law of any country with an internet connection.

[Symphony]

Nevertheless, I think it should be obvious that if a company chooses to do business in a country, that country has a say in what the company does. It doesn't matter if facebook's servers are in America or not. This is a very antiquated attitude.

So, a country that has a conflict between their laws and FB's practices can block their citizens from FB (preventing them from doing business there). Alternatively, FB can block any citizens from that country, for the same effect.

In no case should FB be compelled to honor every country's laws simply because they have the ability to serve that country's citizens. If they want to do business there, they change their practices. If they choose not to, they shouldn't be allowed to do business there. Simple, no?

Again, globalization is a two-way street.

Also, am I missing something? Does Facebook not retain the right (like most/all online companies) to refuse service to anybody they choose, with or without cause? Is everybody really alright that a French court is contemplating forcing an American company to provide an unpaid service to a French citizen?