matter for the reasons that: the impugned Facebook algorithm recommends inciteful, hateful and dangerous content to Facebook users in Kenya; content creation for the most part of East and Southern Africa carried out in Kenya; the respondent sells advertising space to Kenyans and the respondent uses its content moderation in Kenya as a base to export human rights violations to Eastern and Southern Africa. Respondents’ Case 12. The respondent in reaction to the application filed its grounds in support dated 31st July 2023 and submissions through Oraro and Company Advocates. This support was however retracted in a Notice of Withdrawal dated 15th November 2023 filed through the firm of Coulson Harney LLP. Interested Parties Case 13. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th interested parties’ responses with respect to the petitioner’s application are not in the Court file or Court Online Platform (CTS). 5th Interested Party 14. In response to the application, the 5th interested party filed grounds in support dated 15th November 2023 on the premise that: i. The Petition raises substantive issues of law including, amongst others, the following: a) Are proprietors of social networking websites duty-bound to moderate content posted on their respective websites by the users of those websites? b) Are proprietors of social networking websites, in any event, liable for human rights violations arising from content posted on their respective websites by the users of those websites? c) Are proprietors of social networking websites liable for human rights violations arising from moderation of content howsoever posted on their respective websites where the offending contentmoderation is outsourced to a third party? d) Are proprietors of social networking websites liable for human rights violations arising from moderation of content howsoever posted on their respective websites where the offending content moderation is executed by means of artificial intelligence? e) Does the High Court of Kenya have jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions concerning alleged cross-border human rights violations arising from moderation of content posted on social networking websites where the alleged offending content-moderation is executed in Kenya? f) Does the High Court of Kenya have jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions concerning human rights violations occurring in Kenya but arising from alleged offending moderation of content executed outside the territory of Kenya? ii. The determination of the substantive issues of law, set out above, will affect the parties to the petition, transcend the circumstances of the petition and have a bearing on public interest as demonstrated below: a) The determination of the subject substantive issues, if made either way, will affect the exercise of the fundamental freedom of expression by millions of persons residing in Kenya (citizens and noncitizens who post content on Facebook and on other social networking websites. b) The determination of the subject substantive issues, if made ether way, will affect the exercise of amongst other rights, the right of access to information, consumer rights, and freedom from discrimination, by millions of persons residing in Kenya [citizens and non-citizens] who consume content posted on Facebook and on other social networking websites. c) The determination of the subject substantive issues, if made either way, will have a bearing on the national security of Kenya as it will impact on the responsibility of proprietors of social networking websites in the prevention and mitigation of security threats posed or multiplied by content posted on respective social networking websites. d) The determination of the subject substantive jurisdictional issues, if made either way, will be precedential on the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kenya with regard to petitions for redress of The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 3/23