Aktuell

LIDC Congress 2025 Question B20.10.2025

We continue our summary of the scientific program at the LIDC Congress 2025 in Vienna with the working session on the liability of online platforms as Question B.

In the working session on Question B of the LIDC Congress 2025 Vienna, which explores the liability of platforms with regards to copyright and competition law under the title "What responsibility or obligations should online platforms have when it comes to eliminating infringements by their users, especially in the areas of IP and unfair competition?”, the international reporter Nikolaus Forgó and Anna Tauber introduced the topic and the international report. The content of the international report relies on the 17 submitted national reports, allowing for a detailed summary of the international landscape. A common element was the switch from neutral hosts of content to liable actors as soon as knowledge is gained. Also, voluntary moderation of content is often not in contrast with a safe harbor exemption. However, the legal procedure regarding unlawful content, especially regarding copyright and competition law, differ heavily across jurisdictions – whilst judicial decisions are required in Brazil, direction-based procedures can be found in Singapore and platforms as decision-makers in the EU member states.

Finally, keypoints for the safeguarding of IP and competition-compliance on platforms were introduced: Right holders, users, or accredited organisations should be able to flag suspected IP or unfair competition infringements through standardised, user-friendly reporting systems. Platforms must act promptly, prioritising trusted sources, removing content when infringement is clear, and referring ambiguous cases to courts or regulators. Clear counter-notice and appeal procedures should ensure wrongly removed content is restored while respecting legal exceptions and discouraging bad-faith notices. Repeat infringers should face proportionate consequences with stay-down obligations applied after valid notices. Platforms should use independently audited automated tools responsibly. Maintaining transparency through regular reporting on notices, responses, appeals, and tool usage, compliance with binding court or regulatory decisions, cooperation with competition authorities, and implementation of robust governance with clear responsibilities are essential. This includes regular risk assessments, and staff training emphasising IP, competition law, proportionality, user rights, and procedural safeguards.

The discussion moderated by Felipe Oquendo highlighted the challenges of addressing online infringements and moderation, particularly during elections, with multiple types of flaggers whose reliability varies. Platforms face trade-offs between quick responses and thorough content analysis, and there is a need for structured takedown procedures, including separate handling of IP and competition issues and penalties for bad-faith notices. National and EU legal frameworks are complex, with difficulties in integrating new legislation and potential value in soft-law approaches supported by enforcement mechanisms. Financial and operational burdens for small companies, the absence of statutory takedown obligations, and the global influence of European regulations were also noted, alongside the limited role of trusted flaggers relative to the volume of reports. A recent court ruling from Sweden shows that platforms may avoid liability for illegal content if adequate supervision mechanisms are in place, even when problematic material remains online.

Resolution approaches include narrowly defined repeat infringement rules, varying compliance practices, and balancing fundamental rights in decisions about account termination or content suspension.

#LIDCVienna

zurück

LIDC Congress 2025 Question B20.10.2025

Österreichische Vereinigung