Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Felicity McMahon, a barrister at 5RB, considers the decision in Richardson v Facebook; Richardson v Google (UK) Ltd., a case which highlights the importance of identifying the correct entity to bring actions against in defamation claims.
What is the background to the claimant’s actions against Facebook and Google?
The claimant brought the action in relation to a Facebook profile and a blogpost on Google’s Blogger service. Both were purportedly by the claimant, but in fact were created by an imposter. The claimant alleged both were defamatory and infringed her right to resect for privacy under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Both posts were taken down after the claimant alerted the companies. The claimant’s actions were brought against ‘Facebook’ and Google (UK) Ltd.
The Master had dismissed both claims on the principal ground that the claimant had a sued or attempted to sue a company that was not responsible for the publication complained of. The claimant appealed.
On what basis was the claimant seeking a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)?
The claimant sought a reference to the CJEU on two grounds, both of which were rejected by the judge.
First, for an authoritative interpretation of Google Spain SL and another company v Agencia Espanola de proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and another: C-131/12  All ER (D) 124 (May), a data protection case, the reasoning of which in relation to liability the claimant sought to argue should apply to defamation and privacy cases.
Second, for the CJEU to determine whether the defendants were ‘hybrid public authorities’ pursuant to ECHR, art 8.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234