French yahoo

French yahoo

 French yahoo

Yahoo! Inc. And société yahoo! France was the defendant. In a french court case known as Ligue Contre le racisme. And l’antisémitisme et union des étudiants juifs de france c. Yahoo! In 2000. The case involved the online auction sale of nazi-era items and the online application of national legislation. Some commentators asserted that the ruling gave french courts broad authority to hear cases involving the internet.

The 9th us circuit court of appeals heard a related case involving the implementation of the french judgment. And the majority of the justices there decided to reject yahooappeal.  The French courts have also instituted criminal charges against yahoo! Inc. And its former president timothy google was found not guilty of all counts against them, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The French civil case

According to Alicia, yahoo! Violated article r645-1 of the french criminal code by enabling the selling of nazi-era memorabilia through its online auction site. Throughout the trial, these facts were not in dispute. The defense center on the fact that these auctions were held following American law. It was assert that no French yahoo technical tools exist to prevent french citizens from taking part in these auctions, at least not without endangering the company’s finances and jeopardizing the continued existence of the internet.

The accusers pointed out

Claim the first amendment of our constitution apply to them, that their servers were situated on our soil, and that the majority of their customers were us, citizens. Free speech and expression are protect in the united states, and any attempt to execute a decision there would be unsuccessful due to constitutional violations.

As a result, they argued that the french court lacked the authority to consider the case.

Section r645-1

The French criminal code’s article r645-1 makes it illegal to “wear or exhibit” in public uniforms, insignias, and badges that “recall those employed” by

A person found guilty of crimes against humanity as defined by the arts. L211-1 to l212-3 or by law no. 64-1326 of 1964-12-26, or by a group proclaimed unlawful following art. 9 of the Nuremberg charter. For the sake of theatrical productions, historical exhibitions, and movies, the display is permitte.

The fine is a fifth-class fine, which can be up to 1,500 euros. And added a single or more additional supplemental sanctions among:

A three-year suspension on the ability to hold or possess any regulated weapon;

Confiscation of one or more regulated weapons that the offender either has or has unrestricted access to;

Confiscation of the relevant items and a community service requirement of 20 to 120 hours.

The verdict

On November 6, the expert team submitted its report, and on November 10, the court issued an order against the defendants. The ruling was render by the tribunal de grande instance (t.g.i.) (ordinary court of original jurisdiction), Paris, on May 22 and November 22, 2000, respectively.

French court’s competence

According to the court, there were enough ties to France for it to have complete jurisdiction over the lawsuit. More specifically bidders from any nation, including France, were permit to participate in the auctions of nazi memorabilia; according to french criminal legislation, it was against the law to show and view such items in France. Yahoo! Inc. Was aware that french citizens used its auction site since it inserted french-language adverts on its sites when computers in France accessed it.

Also mentioned in the injunction against Yahoo! Inc. That was the last point. The court expressly rejected the argument that the supposed difficulties with enforcing a judgment were enough to render it incompetent.

Yahoo! France s.a.

Société on May 22, 2000, yahoo! France was require to inform its users that if they clicked on links from its website to sites run by yahoo! Inc., they might be breaking french law. The judge recognized that this order had been “in letter and spirit” substantially complied with. It rejected the plaintiffs’ French yahoo request to have yahoo! France erases links to American websites, but it reaffirms that users must be warn before activating any such links.

Google inc.

On May 22, 2000, a court ordered Yahoo! Inc. To take all necessary steps to discourage and block French citizens from accessing auctions of nazi memorabilia on its website. Yahoo! Argued that it would be impossible to follow this directive.

google 76659 1280

According to the court-appointed experts’ analysis, DNS databases may be use to identify around 70% of french internet users as such as of the year 2000.


According to the court’s decision, yahoo! Inc. Must adhere to the original injunction within three months or else pay a daily fine of 100,000 francs (15,244.90 euros).

Taking place in the united states

Yahoo! Declared on January 10th, 2001 that it would not be appealing the french court’s decision. It decided to file a lawsuit in san jose’s united states district court for the northern district of California, requesting that the court rule that the french ordinance is inapplicable there. In nonaccordance with the first amendment of the united states constitution, which deals with freedom of expression, judge Jeremy Fogel determined that the decision rendered by the tribunal de grande instance de Paris is inapplicable in the united states.

Before us, the court of appeals for the ninth circuit, lycra, and the self contested the judgment. In 2004 on august 23rd, the ninth after concluding that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellants, lycra, and uejf, the circuit reversed the initial ruling. The court cited Bancroft & masters, inc. V. Augusta national inc., an earlier ninth circuit case, outlined the following standards for establishing personal jurisdiction:

When the non-resident defendant purposefully directed his activities, completed some transaction with the forum or a resident thereof, or engaged in some act by which he purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws, the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with these requirements of “minimum contacts” and “fair play and substantial justice”; the claim arises to the defendant’s forum-related activity; and the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction.

According to our ruling [in bancroft], the express aiming “requirement is satisfied where the defendant is alleged to have engaged in unlawful behavior directed at a plaintiff who the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.

Then came to the following consensus:

Yahoo! Makes no claims that may persuade a judge that the companies’ behavior was wrong in any way. Due to this, the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over lycra and uejf was improper.

Judge Melvin Brunetti wrote a dissenting opinion in which he claim that the french accusations and the forum state plaintiff were “intentionally targeted” by the defendant. According to the supreme court’s “explicit aiming” precedent, the united states, the forum state, was given jurisdiction by treating fines as constituting.

In the united states, the issue drew media attention and prompted a backlash of debate because many people believed that a foreign force was restricting a domestic journal. Even though the ruling only required yahoo! To stop nazi-related merchandise sales to french citizens, yahoo! Has instead decided to end all nazi-related merchandise sales on its website.

Yahoo! Inc. V. The league against racism and antisemitism (lycra)

Primary article yahoo! Inc. Versus the league against racism and antisemitism

The district court’s decision was overturned by the same court’s en banc decision on January 12, 2006, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

On whether to remand due to ripeness or personal jurisdiction issues, the jury was split. According to Judge William Fletcher:

Yahoo! Is unavoidably asserting that it has a first amendment right to break the law in France and to assist others in breaking the law there. […] It’s unclear how far this extraterritorial privilege under the first amendment goes, much alone whether it even exists.

The united states supreme court released its state-refused certiorari.

Yahoo! Was ordered to block users in France

Paris — in a historic decision, a french court mandated on Monday that yahoo! Prohibit french internet users from accessing its auction sites that sell nazi artifacts.

The verdict put an end to a seven-month legal dispute that was begun by various anti-racism organizations. Who claims that the Santa Clara, california-base internet behemoth had to trivialize the holocaust?

The court gave yahoo! Three months to figure out a mechanism to prevent french web users from seeing its internet pages that offer items like flags and daggers with swastika symbols on them. Yahoo! Will then be charged 100,000 francs ($13,000) for every day it doesn’t comply, according to the court.

Internet experts are worry that the case may establish a precedent for a nation’s ability to impose laws across international boundaries.

Its regulations on foreign-country-stored online content.

Yahoo attorneys! Contended during the trial that it would be technically impossible to prevent French users from accessing the site. They said that the internet has no boundaries and that there is no reliable way to keep people from moving around as they like.

We regret having to implement ineffective measures, according to Christophe Leonard, a lawyer for yahoo! “we hope other nations won’t follow the same path.” Pennard promised to research his options for appealing the judgment.

Seven months ago, two Paris-based anti-racism organizations filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! Because they were upset that french citizens could access more than 1,000 pieces of nazi memorabilia on its auction site.

Read also :

Fix for Instagram Login error 2022

Writing the Ideal Facebook Bio for Your Profile





Spread the love

One thought on “ French yahoo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *