Editorial

This edition of Information Technology Law Reports contains two cases. In the first,  Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) dealt with website operators and what constitutes joint controllership. Equal responsibility is not necessarily implied. Operators can be involved at various stages of the process and to different degrees. Businessmen need to apportion responsibility, especially when integrating plugins into their websites. This now needs to be in accordance with Article 26 of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (‘GDPR’). In the second case, SOJ v JAO, the High Court grappled with the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. The case serves as a reminder in that where there is a threat of publication of confidential information anywhere in the world, the court in England and Wales can restrain such publication; and that the court will not assist or encourage blackmail. 

Richard Budworth
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports

Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV
Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber)
K. Lenaerts (President), A. Prechal, C. Toader, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič
29 July 2019
C–40/17 

Data protection – personal data – Facebook plugin embedded on website – joint controllers notion of ‘controller’ – consent of data subject informing the data – subject – Article 2(d) – website operator – lawfulness of data processing – interest of the website operator or provider of the social plugin – Directive 95/46/EC, Article 2(h) and Article 7(a) and 7(f) – Article 10 – consumer-protection associations – reference for a preliminary ruling. 

SOJ v JAO
High Court of Justice (QBD)
Pepperall J
24 September 2019 
[2019] EWHC 2569 (QB)

Confidential information– harassment campaign – settlement agreement – GDPR – mobile phone – blackmail – data protection – interim injunction – without notice – anonymity – s12 Human Rights Act 1998 – injunction granted.