03/02/2020 CG v Facebook Ireland Ltd & Anor [2016] NICA 54 (21 December 2016) is whether Facebook is liable in damages for misuse of private information. There was no case made against it in respect of any harassment of the respondent. [53] Article 15 of the Directive applies to any ISS provider which offers only the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service. That clearly includes Facebook. The Article states that member states shall not impose a general obligation on providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store or a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. [54] The internet has dramatically changed the way that we share information. The extent of that change can be seen from the matters set out in the judgment of Stephens J at paragraph [4] above. Commerce has been responsible for driving much of that change but we have also had a social revolution. Indeed the internet has not alone changed our lives but it has also changed our vocabulary. A tablet is no longer made of stone, a bit does not help to guide a horse and a cookie is more likely to affect your privacy than alleviate the pangs of hunger between meals! [55] The commercial importance of ISS providers is recognised in Recital 2 of the Directive which notes the significant employment opportunities and stimulation of economic growth and investment in innovation from the development of electronic commerce. The purpose of the exemption from monitoring is to make the provision of the service practicable and to facilitate the opportunities for commercial activity. The quantities of information described by the learned trial judge at paragraph [19] of his judgment explain why such a provision is considered necessary. Although the 2002 Regulations do not contain a corresponding provision they need to be interpreted with the monitoring provision in mind. [56] Regulation 19 of the 2002 Regulations effectively transposed Article 14 of the Directive: “"19. Where an information society service is provided which consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that storage where— (a) the service provider— (i) does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the service provider that the activity or information was unlawful; or (ii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information…”" Regulation 22 of the said Regulations is headed “"Notice for the purpose of actual knowledge”": “"22. In determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge for the purposes of regulation… 19(a)(i), a court shall take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, among other things, shall have regard to— (a) whether a service provider has received a notice through a means of contact made available in accordance with regulation 6(1)(c), and (b) the extent to which any notice includes— (i) the full name and address of the sender of the notice; www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2016/54.html 12/21