drt 6455 eCommerce Law lesson 3 eCommerce and Liability

1
drt 6455 eCommerce Lawlesson 3 eCommerce and
Liability

• associate professor
• faculty of law
• university of montreal
• university of montreal chair
• in e-Security and e-Business law
• www.gautrais.com

2
Liability

• Current Liabilities
• Future Liabilities

3
Liability

• ISP (Internet Services Provider)
• Transmission services
• Retention services
• Archiving services
• Editor
• Certification
• Blogger ?
• Payment

4
Liability

• ISP (Internet Services Provider) (Hosting
  services)
• Definition.
• General exemption Regime

5
Liability

• ISP (Internet Services Provider) (Hosting
  services)
• 22 AELFIT
• A service provider, acting as an intermediary,
  that provides document storage services on a
  communication network is not responsible for the
  activities engaged in by a service user with the
  use of documents stored by the service user or at
  the service user's request.
• However, the service provider may incur
  responsibility, particularly if, upon becoming
  aware that the documents are being used for an
  illicit activity, or of circumstances that make
  such a use apparent, the service provider does
  not act promptly to block access to the documents
  or otherwise prevent the pursuit of the activity.
• Idem for Referral services (as Google)
• Idem in
• Unites States
• European Union

6

• eBay Cases
• April 2008 in France Hermes v. eBay (see Manara
  Comment french)
• Not an editor
• Not a ISP
• In the middle reinforced ISP liability
• 2000 in USA Hendrickson c. eBay
• VERO (Verified Rights Owner) application

7
Liability

• Transmission services (art. 36)
• Definition
• General exemption Regime. Its action is limited
  to an purely technical function.

8
Liability

• Transmission services
• 36.  A service provider, acting as an
  intermediary, that provides communication network
  services exclusively for the transmission of
  technology-based documents is not responsible for
  acts of service users performed with the use of
  the documents transmitted or stored during the
  normal course of the transmission for the time
  required for the efficiency of the transmission.
• However, the service provider may incur
  responsibility, particularly if the service
  provider otherwise participates in acts performed
  by service users
• 1) by being the sender of a document 2) by
  selecting or altering the information in a
  document
• 3) by determining who transmits, receives or has
  access to a document or4) by storing a
  document longer than is necessary for its
  transmission.
• Idem as in others countries
• European Union
• USA

9
Liability

• Retention (art. 37)
• Illustrations 2 mains situations
•  cache  function
• Retention for controling access reasons (as for
  security reasons).
• General exemption Regime. (similar to the one
  applies to retention services providers)
• Possible liability if

10
Liability

• Archiving (art. 26)

11
Liability

• Editor
• Old as tge press
• But similar to TV
• 1457 CCQ
• Fault
• Damage
• Causal link
• Higher Liability

12
Liability

• Certification (47 and f.)

13
Liability

• And whats happen with blog?
• Qualification
• Who control? Vaillancourt v. Lagacé (2005)
• Moderation -gt editor
• Non-moderation -gt ISP
• Whats happen in others countries?
• Similar in USA
• Différent in France
• But there are some recommendations in the same
  direction. (Forum des droit sur Internet)

14
Liability

• Blog OK Corral à Saint-Adèle
• Liability concerning the text itself - Balance
  between liberty of expression / libel
• Arguments for the blogger
• Politican person
• Verification process
• Permit to the politician to send a response on
  his blog
• Arguments for the Mayor
• 1457 CCQ
• Judicial trend in Quebec
• Liability concerning the commentaries
• Moderation
• Non moderation

15
Payment Liability
merchant
buyer (consumer) (card user)
Card issuer
Card issuer
16
Payement Liability

• Banque Laurentienne du Canada c. Abdul-Wahab,
  2001 IIJCan 151 (QC C.S.)
• 45  Ceci dit, lorsque le numéro de carte est
  communiqué par téléphone, Internet ou autrement,
  sans présentation formelle de la carte, il
  revient au commerçant dassumer le risque de la
  transaction, et non à linstitution financière
  avec laquelle il a signé une convention de
  services de paiement au point de vente.  En
  effet, les différentes étapes prévues au manuel
  dexploitation visent à réduire au minimum les
  fraudes et sont sous le seul contrôle du
  commerçant  présentation de la carte, signature
  du relevé et vérification des signatures
  apparaissant au relevé et à lendos de la carte. 
  Si ces trois étapes sont remplies et si un numéro
  dautorisation est obtenu, le commerçant a rempli
  sa part du contrat et si de bonne foi2, a droit
  au paiement3.
• 46  En somme, quand le commerçant prend sur lui
  de modifier les méthodes dexploitation, même
  lorsquil est de bonne foi, il doit en assumer
  les conséquences, car lui seul est en mesure de
  faire les vérifications additionnelles que peut
  requérir une transaction à distance et prendre
  les dispositions appropriées avant de remettre
  les biens commandés.

17
Payement Liability

• 147511 Canada Inc. c. Banque Laurentienne du
  Canada, 2003 IIJCan 30449 (QC C.S.)
• 32 Les incidents et les manquements ont été
  suffisamment nombreux et importants pour
  justifier les craintes exprimées par les témoins
  entendus à l'initiative de Banque Laurentienne et
  l'intervention immédiate.
• 33 Il n'était pas nécessaire que Banque
  Laurentienne fasse la preuve de fraude ou de
  mauvaise foi de La Compagnie et de ses
  représentants pour justifier sa décision.  Le non
  respect des conditions d'utilisation, même en
  toute bonne foi, était suffisant.
• 34 Le retrait du terminal constituait le seul
  remède dont Banque Laurentienne disposait pour se
  protéger et, selon la convention intervenue, elle
  pouvait agir comme elle l'a fait.  Dans les
  circonstances spécifiques du présent dossier, son
  comportement ne constituait pas un comportement
  abusif.

18
Liability - Future

• Proactive attitude of Personal Information holder
  
• Canadian Report (2005)
• Option I Truncate (partially blank out)
  payment card numbers
• Option II Verify the identity of persons and
  organizations accessing credit reports
• Option III Do not disclose social insurance
  numbers (SINs) on credit reports or use them as a
  unique identifier for consumers
• Option IV Allow consumers to place freezes on
  their credit reports
• Option V Require organizations that store
  personal information to notify individuals and
  credit bureaus in cases of security breaches
• Option VI Require credit bureaus to place fraud
  alerts on consumers credit reports incases of
  security breaches or upon the request of an
  identity theft victim
• Option VII Require credit lenders to disclose
  details of fraudulent debts to victims
• Option VIII Require credit bureaus to block
  information about fraudulent debts appearing on a
  consumers credit report
• Option IX - Make organizations liable for damages
• Option X Inform victims of their rights
• English Report fronm the House of Lords (2007)