Jurisdiction Concerning Actions by a Legal Person for Disparaging Statements on the Internet: The Persistence of the Mosaic Approach

The author comments on a recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Gtflix TV v DR (C-251/20 ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036), concerning jurisdiction on an action by a legal person seeking at the same time rectification and removal of disparaging statements published by a competitor on the Internet, and compensation for damages resulting therefrom. The Court followed the line set in its previous judgments concerning the interpretation of art. 7.2 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I-bis Regulation) in relation to cases of online defamation. Accordingly, whereas claims for rectification and removal may be brought only before either the courts of the Member State where the publisher is established or of the Member State where the centre of interests of the person concerned is located, actions for compensation may still be brought also before other Member States’ courts, based on the pure accessibility of such information, with effect limited to damage suffered within the jurisdiction of the court seized. The author discusses the appropriateness of maintaining the said solution, known as the “Mosaic approach”, originally conceived by the Court in respect of defamation by means of printed publications, considering the limited relevance of the criterion based on pure accessibility as concerns online materials and the undue incentive it offers to manoeuvres of forum shopping and law shopping.