header-logo header-logo

GDPR reaches across the Atlantic

12 January 2022
Issue: 7962 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail
‘Minimal’ activity such as offering subscriptions in the UK is enough to make a US online magazine subject to the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the Court of Appeal has held in a landmark case

In Soriano v Forensic News & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1952, the claimant was a British citizen, living in the UK, and the defendants were a Californian online news publication and four journalists, all located in the USA. Businessman Walter Soriano alleged the defendants published articles which breached the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR, and constituted harassment, libel and malicious falsehood with the damage being caused in England and Wales where the claimant lives and has his main business.

At issue, however, was whether the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction and whether the claimant could argue a case under GDPR since the publication was targeted at US readers. The High Court allowed the libel claim and some claims on issue of private information to go ahead but refused permission for claims in data protection, malicious falsehood or harassment.

The Court of Appeal allowed Soriano’s cross-appeal on the GDPR claim but dismissed the defendants’ appeal on libel and malicious falsehood.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Warby found the publication did have an ‘establishment’ in the EU, satisfying the requirement for ‘territorial scope’ under the GDPR. He said they ‘intended’ to make their output known in the UK and EU and ‘expressly solicited subscriptions… via the Patreon platform. They succeeded in securing three subscriptions in sterling and three in Euros. This may be "minimal" activity but nothing more is required’.

5RB, whose barristers acted for the claimant, said the judgment was the first appellate decision on the territorial reach of the GDPR and would ‘have far-reaching implications for all US media corporations’.

On defamation, it said the judgment was now the ‘definitive authority’ on s 9 of the Defamation Act 2019, which applies to all defendants domiciled outside the UK and is a ‘personal jurisdiction provision, not a subject-matter jurisdiction provision. Parliament has modified common law forum conveniens in a particular way, not introduced a new form of jurisdictional bar’.

Issue: 7962 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll