Primary presumptions for website operator’s liability for offensive comments

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

In 2013 and 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by its judgements in the famous case Delfi AS v. Estonia admitted the possibility of liability of the Internet news portal operator for unlawful comments of users. However, just half a year later, the ECHR in MTE & Index v. Hungary case, which was, at first sight, similar, took a different decision, i.e. that the website operator could not be held liable. Finally, in 2017 the ECHR in Pihl v. Sweden case resolved a dispute over a comment posted in a blog. Thus, this article analyses, by applying the comparative method, the primary presumptions for website operator’s liability established in the above mentioned cases. The authors define the criteria for assessment of the context of comments and models of conduct of website operators and set certain general waymarks, which could be applied in similar cases.