Delfi AS v. Estonia
{{Short description|European Court of Human Rights case}}
{{Italic title}}
{{Infobox European case
|court= ECtHR
|SubmitDate= 4 December
|SubmitYear= 2009
|DecideDate= 16 June
|DecideYear= 2015
|FullName= Delfi AS v. Estonia
|CaseNumber= 64569/09
|Chamber = Grand Chamber
|Language = English, French
|JudgePresident = Dean Spielmann
|Keywords= Freedom of expression, intermediary liability
}}
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015) [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-155105 ECtHR 64669/09] is a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the Grand Chamber.
Facts
In the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the liability of an online news portal for defamatory comments posted by its readers.{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Brenna |date=2015-07-07 |title=ECtHR decides Delfi AS v. Estonia in Estonia's Favor |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/updates/2015/07/ecthr-decides-delfi-as-v-estonia-in-estonias-favor/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=ERR |date=2015-06-17 |title=ECHR upholds Estonian news portal liable for online comments ruling |url=https://news.err.ee/116112/echr-upholds-estonian-news-portal-liable-for-online-comments-ruling |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=ERR |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Blogger |first=Guest |date=2015-06-18 |title=Delfi AS v. Estonia: Grand Chamber confirms liability of online news portal for offensive comments posted by its readers |url=https://strasbourgobservers.com/2015/06/18/delfi-as-v-estonia-grand-chamber-confirms-liability-of-online-news-portal-for-offensive-comments-posted-by-its-readers/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=Strasbourg Observers |language=en-US}} The case centered on Delfi, a prominent Estonian news website, which published an article in January 2006 about a ferry company's decision that disrupted planned ice roads.{{Cite web |title=Delfi AS v. Estonia |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/delfi-as-v-estonia/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=scl-paullauria |date=2013-10-09 |title=ECHR Judgment on News Portal Liability for Comments |url=https://www.scl.org/2919-echr-judgment-on-news-portal-liability-for-comments/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=Society for Computers & Law |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |date=2013-10-26 |title=The European Court of Human Rights Holds Delfi.ee Liable for Anonymous Defamation |url=https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/10/european-court-human-rights-holds-delfiee-liable-anonymous-defamation/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=Stanford CIS |language=en}} This article attracted 185 comments, approximately 20 of which contained offensive or threatening language directed at the ferry company's owner.
Delfi had implemented measures to moderate user comments, including an automatic filter to delete postings containing certain lewd language and a notice-and-take-down system allowing readers to mark inappropriate comments for removal.{{Cite web |last=Union (EBU) |first=European Broadcasting |date=2013-10-23 |title=ECHR: liability of internet news portal for offensive online comments is not a violation of freedom of expression |url=https://www.ebu.ch/news/2013/10/echr-liability-of-internet-news |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=www.ebu.ch |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2013-10-14 |title=European Court strikes serious blow to free speech online |url=https://www.article19.org/resources/european-court-strikes-serious-blow-free-speech-online/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=ARTICLE 19 |language=en-US}} Despite these measures, the offensive comments remained online for six weeks before Delfi removed them following a request from the ferry company's owner, who also sought €32,000 in damages.
The Estonian courts held Delfi liable for the defamatory comments, reasoning that the portal, as a commercial news provider, should have exercised greater control over user-generated content. The courts emphasized that Delfi's filtering mechanisms were insufficient to prevent the publication of clearly unlawful hate speech and that the company had a substantial degree of control over the comments published on its platform.{{Cite web |title=Delfi AS v Estonia |url=https://www.5rb.com/case/delfi-v-estonia/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=5RB Barristers |language=en-GB}}
Delfi appealed the decision to the ECtHR, arguing that holding it liable for third-party comments violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR upheld the Estonian courts' decision, concluding that the interference with Delfi's freedom of expression was justified and proportionate.{{Cite web |title=European Court of Human Rights examines the entitlement to freedom of speech - Human Rights Law Centre |url=https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/european-court-of-human-rights-examines-the-entitlement-to-freedom-of-speech/ |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=www.hrlc.org.au |language=en-US}} The Court noted that Delfi, as a professional publisher, should have been aware of the potential risks associated with allowing anonymous comments and had the means to prevent harm to third parties.{{Cite web |title=Article |url=https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/7308 |access-date=2025-06-05 |website=merlin.obs.coe.int}}
This case set a significant precedent regarding the responsibilities of online platforms in moderating user-generated content, highlighting the balance between protecting freedom of expression and safeguarding individuals' reputations.
Significance
{{See also|Electronic Commerce Directive 2000|Digital Services Act}}
The ruling was unexpected, because of potential conflicts with the "actual knowledge" standard of Article 14 of the EU's E-Commerce Directive.{{Cite web|url=http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/07/01/not-so-different-after-all-reconciling-delfi-vs-estonia-with-eu-rules-on-intermediary-liability/|title=Not so different after all? Reconciling Delfi vs. Estonia with EU rules on intermediary liability|last=|first=|date=2015-07-01|website=Media Policy Project Blog|publisher=London School of Economics and Political Science|language=en-US|access-date=2016-08-24|archive-date=2016-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160826111527/http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/07/01/not-so-different-after-all-reconciling-delfi-vs-estonia-with-eu-rules-on-intermediary-liability/|url-status=dead}} The ruling is influential in the development of national and European Union law,{{cite web|last1=Moody|first1=Glyn|title=Shock European court decision: Websites are liable for users' comments|url=http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments/|website=arstechnica.co.uk|date=16 June 2015 |publisher=Ars Technica}} particularly leading to the Digital Services Act.
Delfi AS was represented by attorneys-at-law Karmen Turk and Villu Otsmann from pan-Baltic law firm Triniti and the government of Estonia by Maris Kuurberg.{{Citation needed|date=August 2016}}
The case was followed shortly by Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary,http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/135.html which reached a different conclusion based on slightly different facts.{{Cite web|url=http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/02/19/the-european-court-of-human-rights-rules-again-on-liability-for-third-party-comments/|title=The European Court of Human Rights rules again on liability for third party comments|last=Bodrogi|first=Bea|date=2016-02-19|website=Media Policy Project Blog|publisher=London School of Economics and Political Science|language=en-US|access-date=2016-08-24|archive-date=2016-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160826130850/http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/02/19/the-european-court-of-human-rights-rules-again-on-liability-for-third-party-comments/|url-status=dead}}