03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) and welcoming environment. We reviewed the photo you reported for annoying and distasteful humour and found it doesn't violate our community standards." In the course of the hearing I was also referred by the defendant to a bundle of screenshots from Facebook which clearly are a response to online complaints. [68] These included a response to a complaint concerning Ardoyne under Siege for containing credible threats of violence. [69] The response was that this "page wasn't removed" and that "it doesn't violate our community standards". It is not clear if this was in response to J20 or to another plaintiff in related proceedings J19. Much of the remainder of the material is difficult to make out but it is clear that the defendant received a complaint in relation to the Belfast Banter website and in particular to the photograph referred to in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim which was held not to violate the defendant's community standards. The complaint was "annoying and distasteful humour". Similarly the other photographs about which the plaintiff complains in Ardoyne Under Siege, Belfast Banter and Irish Blessings were all the subject matter of a complaint which were not upheld as they didn't violate the Facebook's community standards. [70] I was unable to discern the exact dates upon which these complaints were made or the dates of the responses, but in light of the evidence it seems that they must have been in or around the same dates. [71] The defendant submits that the material to which I have referred was insufficient to fix the defendant with actual knowledge under the E-Commerce Regulations. In relation to the criticisms about failure to provide URLs and a failure to identify the material about which the plaintiff complains I reject this submission. Irrespective of any deficiencies it is abundantly clear that the defendant reviewed the entire web page involving Irish Blessings "and determined it did not violate Facebook's terms of service." Equally it is clear that the other web pages were identified by way of online complaint. All of these sites were reviewed by the defendant and held not to violate Facebook's terms of service. It was aware of the Irish Blessings page from 13 September 2013 via the solicitors' letter and indeed was aware of the Irish Blessings photograph by way of online complaint on 12 September. [72] The defendant further argues that the notices are deficient in that neither the solicitors' letters nor the online complaints identify any grounds of unlawfulness. In short the basis on which the activity or information is said to be unlawful has not been provided. [73] In considering this issue there are a number of matters which seem to me to be relevant. [74] Firstly, neither the plaintiff nor his friends can be criticised in relation to the online complaints. They do not provide the opportunity to set out a legal basis for complaint. The automated system involves the complainant clicking onto pre-prepared boxes for the reporting of abuse. Someone such as the plaintiff or his friends cannot be expected to categorise the legal nature of their complaints and indeed the automated system does not facilitate this. Having received the complaints it seems to me that the onus then shifts to the defendant to assess the alleged abusive content. Secondly, the solicitors' letter of 13 September refers to the Irish Blessings website (which the defendant was able to identify) and makes express reference to the plaintiff being described as a "loyalist bigot", "as bitter as the day is long", "sectarian scumbag". The letter also refers to 13 offensive and sectarian comments which had been posted on the site and makes express reference to the fact that the plaintiff is in fear of his life. [75] I accept that the letter of 13 September could and should have been more specific in identifying the precise legal basis of the plaintiff's complaint. However, in my view the defendant should be expected to know the relevant law in relation to such matters as defamation, harassment and breach of private information when a complaint is drawn to its attention. It cannot simply turn a blind eye to complaints and say that a complainant has failed to properly categorise the legal basis of that complaint. At a minimum the defendant should consider the material in respect of which there has been a complaint and remove any unlawful content. In this case the unlawful content which I have found is apparent on the face of the material. This is not a case where the defendant required further information to come to a conclusion on the lawfulness of the material posted. The unlawfulness is apparent in the words themselves. This is not a case for example in which a plaintiff is relying on some form of www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 13/17