French Court Rules That Facebook Can Now Be Sued in France (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Paris court of appeal has ruled in favor of a French complainant whose account was suspended, because he linked to an image of the 1866 Gustav Courbet nude 'L'Origine du monde', currently residing at the Musee d'Orsay. The appeals court not only agreed that the user's suspension by Facebook constitutes censorship, but the ruling itself negates Facebook's insistence that all legal challenges take place in its native California.

Comments

Re:Well...

[MightyMartian]

Much like Italy covered up all those naughty Renaissance and classical nudes for the Iranian delegation, because, you know, genitals are EVIL!!!!!!!!!

Good for France.

[Motherfucking Shit]

At a very basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operate as a multi-national company, and you're going to offer and promote your services around the globe, then you need to be responsible for and liable to the laws of the land in each of those territories. If you operate in France and you violate the law in France, then you should be subject to penalty in France.

You don't get to shuffle all of your American tax liability through a double Dutch Sandwich with an Irish muffin, or whatever the hell it is, and simultaneously force French legal complaints to be arbitrated in California. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Good for France.

[xaxa]

Without bothering to read the article, it's probably relevant that the user in question is a resident of France, and access the site from France.

Facebook obviously know this, as it's a key attribute used to target advertising.

Re:Good for France.

[Motherfucking Shit]

So what do you do when laws in different countries are contradictory? Example: Certain speech being illegal in country A, but protected in country B?

I suppose you have two real choices,

1) block the speech from being seen in country A and allow it to be seen in countries B..Z

2) remove your business operations from country A

Take a look at Google, they've used both strategies in differing countries. Facebook itself is dealing with Belgium's ruling that they're no longer allowed to use cookies to track people who haven't signed up for the service.

My primary point is that Facebook does everything it can to minimize its tax liability in the US by shuffling money around, pretending to be based in Ireland and Luxembourg, etc. That's all well and legal for now, but in doing so, you're no longer an American company and should not have any claim to force overseas legal complaints into American jurisdiction.

Re:Good for France.

[AlterEager]

It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France.

You don't realy get this "internet" thing, do you. What matters is not where "the site is located" (whatever that means). What matters is where the company is doing business. Facebook does business in France, French law applies.

FACEBOOK FRANCE
Societe 530085802
108 AVENUE DE WAGRAM
75017 PARIS
FRANCE

http://www.societe.com/societe/facebook-france-530085802.html

Re:Good for France.

[AlterEager]

If I have a forum, housed in the US, and someone from France doesn't like what someone posts, on my forum that is in my country, then France can suck my nuts.

Good for you. But that is irrelevant to the case in hand -- Facebook is a company doing business in France -- French law applies to that business.

Women

[110010001000]

Women should not be treated as sex objects. This isn't 1866 anymore! Grow up Gustav. Put some clothes on her and teach her to code!

Incorrect Summary

[Translation Error]

The appeals court not only agreed that the user's suspension by Facebook constitutes censorship, but the ruling itself negates Facebook's insistence that all legal challenges take place in its native California.

According to the article, the court didn't say anything about the alleged censorship. It just ruled that the clause in Facebook's terms and conditions that all lawsuits had to take place in California was invalid.

Re: Incorrect Summary

[yacc143]

That's obvious because in all European countries consumer protection laws require law suits to be located at the court of the residence of the consumer.

So requiring a consumer to sue away from his residence is obviously not possible.

Re:Well...

[stephanruby]

Facebook could have just put a fig leaf over the offending parts...

For the puritanical Americans and for the Middle East.

For everyone else, they could have just left the image as is.

Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!!

[rtb61]

The only principle here is, if a business is generating revenue in a country, then that revenue can be targeted in a civil suit. The company can not turn around and claim somehow that it should be allowed to make money in a country but simultaneously not be held accountable for how it makes money in that country. To pretend to claim so is just so much legal bullshit. It is bad enough when you have global tax fraud on trillions of dollars of income and the pain, death and suffering that causes in the crippling of social services and the break down of infrastructure, now they are corruptly fighting to not be held legally accountable for their actions when they are done by remote control. All the money and no responsibility, corporations are behaving like out of control toddlers, screaming for more all of the time now.