Category: internet jurisdiction

Developments in computer, Internet and e-commerce law: the year in review (2018-2019)Developments in computer, Internet and e-commerce law: the year in review (2018-2019)



I gave my annual presentation yesterday to the Toronto computer Lawyers’ Group on “The year in review in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law”. It covers the period from June 2018 to June 2019. The developments include cases from Canada, the U.S. the U.K., EU, Australia, South Africa, India and other countries.

The developments are organized into the broad topics of:

  • Privacy / Big Data / AI
  • Employee / HR
  • E-commerce / Online Agreements
  • Online Remedies / Governance / Jurisdiction
  • Copyright

The cases and other documents referred to are below.

The Unintended Equustek Effect: a reply to Michael GeistThe Unintended Equustek Effect: a reply to Michael Geist



Cyberspace is not a “No Law Land”. That was the title to a study conduced for Industry Canada in 1997. It started with this quote from Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co-founder:

It’s always surprising how old concepts carry into the new medium. It’s overly idealistic to act like, Oh, the Internet is the one place where people should be able to do whatever they wish: present child pornography, do scams, libel people, steal copyrighted material. Society’s values have not changed fundamentally just because it’s an Internet page.

Developments in computer, Internet and e-commerce law: the year in review (2017-2018)Developments in computer, Internet and e-commerce law: the year in review (2017-2018)



I gave my annual presentation today to the Toronto computer Lawyers’ Group on “The year in review in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law”. It covers the period from June 2017 to June 2018. The developments include cases from Canada, the U.S. the U.K., Singapore, Australia, and other countries.

The developments are organized into the broad topics of:

  • Jurisdiction/Online Remedies/Conflicts of Laws
  • Hyperlinks/Search Results/Computer Generated Content
  • e-Commerce & Online Agreements
  • Technology Contracting
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • CASL.

The cases referred to are listed below.

Google v Equustek: worldwide de-indexing order against Google upheld by Supreme CourtGoogle v Equustek: worldwide de-indexing order against Google upheld by Supreme Court



The Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision today ruling that Canadian common law courts have the jurisdiction to make global de-indexing orders against search engines like Google. In so, ordering, the Court in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 underlined the breadth of courts’ jurisdiction to make orders against search engines to stem illegal activities on the Internet including the sale of products manufactured using trade secrets misappropriated from innovative companies.

The decision arose from a lower court decision that ordered Google to block websites that were selling goods that violated the trade secrets of the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction simpliciter in copyright cases: Geophysical Service v Arcis Seismic SolutionsJurisdiction simpliciter in copyright cases: Geophysical Service v Arcis Seismic Solutions



In Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, the Supreme Court clarified the rules for when a Canadian court can assume jurisdiction over a claim against a party located outside the jurisdiction. Specifically, it clarified the rules for applying the real and substantial test to determining if there is a sufficient connection between the subject matter of the action and the jurisdiction for  determining jurisdiction simpliciter. The Van Breda case did not, however, address how that test would apply to cases involving infringement of copyright.

Google ordered by BC court to block websites: Equustek Solutions Inc. v. JackGoogle ordered by BC court to block websites: Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack



In an important decision rendered on June 13, 2014, a Canadian court ordered Google to block a website that was selling goods that violated the trade secrets of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants. But, the defendants continued to sell the offending goods over the Internet. The plaintiffs, unable to enforce their judgment, asked for Google’s help in blocking the website. Google voluntarily de-indexed specific URL’s requested by the plaintiffs, but this “whac-a-mole” process was ineffective.

Internet pharmacies selling drugs to Americans illegal: Ontario College of Pharmacists v Global Pharmacy CanadaInternet pharmacies selling drugs to Americans illegal: Ontario College of Pharmacists v Global Pharmacy Canada



The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in a decision released earlier this week that it is illegal to sell prescription drugs over the Internet to Americans where a substantial portion of the sales operations take place in Ontario when the seller is not licensed to operate a pharmacy in Ontario and otherwise does not comply with the laws and regulations governing pharmacies. In Ontario College of Pharmacists v. 1724665 Ontario Inc. (Global Pharmacy Canada), 2013 ONCA 381 the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Janet Wilson of the Superior Court of Justice who in Ontario College of Pharmacists v.