Posting a hyperlink to another media outlet’s publication does not in itself imply dissemination of all information or automatic liability for disseminating false information, the Supreme Court notes.
“Material made public by placing a hyperlink to another media outlet’s publication and a brief summary thereof does not imply automatic liability for the entire content of the original source,” reads a statement on the Supreme Court’s website on Friday, citing the opinion of the panel of judges of the Cassation Commercial Court within the Supreme Court (CCC of the Supreme Court).
According to the Court, the proper defendants in cases concerning the protection of business reputation involving the dissemination of information on the Internet are the author of the material and the owner of the website on which the material is posted.
“It is the plaintiff who must determine the proper circle of defendants, taking into account the legal nature of the disputed legal relationship and the nature of the dissemination of information,” the statement notes.
The Court explains that a limited liability company (LLC) filed a lawsuit against another company regarding the protection of business reputation.
“The lawsuit was based on the fact that the defendant’s website featured a summary of a journalistic investigation and a hyperlink to a publication released by another media outlet, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, led to the dissemination of false information,” the Court clarifies regarding the essence of the case considered by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
The Commercial Court, in a decision upheld by the ruling of the Commercial Court of Appeal, granted the claim.
“The courts concluded that the defendant had disseminated information belonging to the plaintiff, that the information was inaccurate, and that it had damaged the plaintiff’s business reputation. Disagreeing with these decisions, the defendant LLC filed a cassation appeal,” the Supreme Court notes.
In reviewing the case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that the mere fact of posting a hyperlink does not imply assuming responsibility for the full content of a third party’s publication.
“The Supreme Court noted that a hyperlink is a technical means of referring to another resource and is not equivalent to the independent dissemination of the entire content of such a resource. Liability is possible only to the extent that the information was directly reproduced or presented by the defendant as its own message,” the statement reads.
In addition, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized the need to distinguish between factual statements and evaluative judgments, as well as to determine whether the plaintiff has proven the inaccuracy of the specific information disseminated by the defendant.
The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of determining the actual scope of information dissemination by a specific defendant and not holding them liable for the entire content of a third party’s material solely because of the presence of a hyperlink.
“The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine noted that the proper defendants in cases involving the dissemination of information on the internet are the author of the material and the owner of the website on which it is posted. If the author is known, it is he who must be involved in the case,” the Court stated.
Based on the results of the cassation review, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the lower courts regarding the defendant’s liability and the completeness of establishing the legal elements of the offense were premature.
hyperlink, INFORMATION, LIABILITY, SUPREME COURT
Related:
