Cyber Law

LICRA VS YAHOO
Legal System: Civil Law
Involved Countries: France, United States of America
Type of Proceeding: Civil
INTRODUCTION
The case UEJF and Licra v Yahoo! Inc and Yahoo France made significant change in the field
of cyber law the case involved various issues like responsibility of internet corporations for
content posted by users on their websites, the problem of jurisdiction in cases where there is a
conflict of interest between state laws of two countries .the case had significant attention in the
international community as it was a fight between two non-profit human rights groups in France
against Internet giant search engine and information portal Yahoo. There was a series of court
proceedings that happened the first two proceedings in France in 2000 resulted in a French court
order directing Yahoo to add geo-location filtering software to its servers in Santa Clara. The
subsequent California district court litigation filed in 2001 resulted in summary judgment for
Yahoo. The judgment also had global implications of the French and U.S. proceedings setting
benchmark for cases having jurisdictional conflicts
FACTS OF THE CASE
LICRA filed a civil complaint against Yahoo, for allowing its online auction service to be used
for the sale of Nazi memorabilia, in violation of Article R645-1(restricts free expression by
making it a crime to display, exchange, or sell Nazi paraphernalia or Third Reich memorabilia)1
of the French Criminal Code. In which a French court ruled that Yahoo! Violated R. 645-1 by
making available, on its auction website, various Nazi related items to Internet users in France.2
Yahoo! sought relief in the United States from the strict penalties imposed by the French court.
U.S. district court subsequently ruled that the French order was unenforceable, basing its
decision on the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution
1
ART. R. 645-1 (2001) [hereinafter French Penal Code R. 645-1](providing that the display or sale of Nazi-related
materials is prohibited in France).
2
http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/yauctions20000522 .htm (last visited march. 12,2021)
PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE
Court title; Tribunal de Grande Instance (High Court) RG 05308
22nd may 2000
Arguments
The main contentions of respondents ( LICRA and UEJF) were that the Yahoo!'s auction site
allows the posting of items illegal in France, including Nazi paraphernalia and Third Reich
memorabilia and is direct violation of Article R645-1 of the French Criminal Code. The
defendant’s (yahoo) in this case argued that even though these auctions were conducted under
the jurisdiction of the United States. It was claimed that there were no technical means to prevent
French residents from participating in these auctions, that their servers were located on US
territory, that their services were primarily aimed at US residents, that the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and that any
attempt to enforce a judgment in the United States would fail for unconstitutionality.
Judgment
The Court ordered Yahoo! US to take all the measures necessary to dissuade and prevent access
to auctions for Nazi memorabilia and content supporting Nazism. The court ordered Yahoo!
France to warn users that, should Yahoo!’s search results include content prohibited under
French law, they shall refrain from accessing such content to avoid incurring legal sanctions.
Yahoo! US was ordered 10,000 Francs to LICRA; Yahoo US and Yahoo France were ordered
to pay 10,000 to UEJF.
How the question of jurisdiction was answered by the court
The court ruled that there were sufficient links with France to give it full jurisdiction to hear the
complaint. In particular:
 the auctions of Nazi memorabilia were open to bidders from any country, including
France;
 the display of such objects, and the viewing of such objects in France, caused a public
nuisance and was forbidden under French criminal law;
 Yahoo! Inc. was aware that French residents used its auction site, as it displayed French-
language advertisements on its pages when they were accessed from computers in
France.
 This last point was also referred to in the injunction against Yahoo! Inc. The court
specifically dismissed the claim that the alleged problems of enforcing a judgment were
sufficient to nullify its competence.
CI VIL SUIT FILED IN US
 The issue in the case was whether another nation can regulate speech within the United
States without violating the Constitution, and weather the order issued by the French
court be valid in us
 Another issue that the court looked into was weather the decision by the Tribunal de
grande instance de Paris to be inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, relating to freedom of expression, and that consequently it is
inapplicable in the United States.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose,
January 10, 2001
Following the French decisions, Yahoo! filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the French court's orders
were neither recognizable nor enforceable under the laws of the United States.3
JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT
The court held that Freedom of speech is highly valued among the American people;accordingly,
the First Amendment is subject to minimal restriction. Following precedent, the U.S. court had a
duty to protect Yahoo!'s freedom of speech by preventing France from chilling that freedom. The
district court upheld all the arguments of yahoo and held the French decision was in breach of
the First Amendment to the American Constitution and, thus, not enforceable in the US
US SUPREME COURT
30 May 2006
CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT
UEJF and LICRA appealed the District Court’s decision claiming that: 1) the District Court
lacked personal jurisdiction; 2) the case was not ripe - i.e. it was contingent upon a future
condition, the request to enforce the French decision in the US-, and 3) the District Court should
apply the abstention doctrine, which prevents a court from deciding on a case because it would
intrude upon the powers of another court.
JUDGMENT
3
Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (No. C 00-21275)
However, the Court of Appeals decided to rehear the case en banc and, on 12 January 2006,
affirmed after finding that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the appellants,
namely LICRA and UEJF.But the second and third arguments of the appellant was dismissed
and only the first contention was accepted
ANALYSIS
This issue is significant because people will continue to break foreign laws with speech over the
Internet, and disputes will inevitably continue to arise over these activities. The Internet is a
growing and changing part of our society and will continue to affect our lives in the future as
new related technologies become available. The Yahoo Case is only one example of how the
Internet and conflicting laws can cause international disputes. Various similar disputes have
occurred involving citizens of other nations, demonstrating that this is a widespread global
problem. Because this issue exists on such a large scale, a consensus must be reached on how
nations will settle future disputes, not only between France and the United States, but between all
nations

Cyber Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cyber Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LICRA VS YAHOO

Legal System: Civil Law

Involved Countries: France, United States of America

Type of Proceeding: Civil

FACTS OF THE CASE

Court title; Tribunal de Grande Instance (High Court) RG 05308

22nd may 2000

How the question of jurisdiction was answered by the court

January 10, 2001

JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT

CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT

You might also like