The new Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC) was passed on 14 November 2017, with the goal of providing enforcement authorities with additional powers to combat unlawful online practices. The CPC will also help harmonise consumer protection law across the EU. While the CPC is sure to aid compliance, it remains to be seen how far-reaching some of the powers will become, in particular, the website-blocking power referred to below.
On 26 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion that the draft Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement between the EU and Canada is not compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) and may not be concluded in its current form. The Opinion follows a referral by the European Parliament to the CJEU and is the first time the Court has been requested to examine the compatibility of an international agreement with the EU Charter.
The European Council has finalised its position on the directive setting out new rules relating to the supply of digital content and digital services, acknowledging it as a priority for the Digital Single Market. The makings of the proposed directive were initially presented by the European Commission in late 2015 as part of the move towards a connected digital single market. On 8 June 2017, the European Council adopted its position on the scope of the proposed directive, the remedies for lack of supply and non-conformity, supplier liability and burden of proof restrictions.
The German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has delayed the ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement. This is the result of a challenge to the UPC on constitutional grounds by a private individual who has not been named.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down a reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-610/15 (Stichtin Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV), holding that making available and managing an online platform for sharing copyright-protected works may constitute an infringement of copyright.
In Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited and Aldi GMBH & Co. KG v Dunnes Stores  IECA 116, Dunnes Stores (Dunnes) succeeded in its appeal against a High Court ruling that its 2013 comparative advertising campaign against Aldi was contrary to EC (Misleading and Comparative Advertising) Regulations, 2007 (the 2007 Regulations) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2007 (the 2007 Act).
In essence, the Court of Appeal determined that the High Court applied the wrong test. It did not make a decision as to whether the 2013 campaign was lawful, but criticised a number of adverse findings made by the High Court.
In Rolf Anders Daniel Pihl v Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) agreed with Swedish authorities that a non-profit association was not liable for anonymous defamatory comments posted on its blog. The ECHR held that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to hold the owner of the blog liable for the anonymous defamatory online comment did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).
In Muwema v Facebook Ireland Ltd  IEHC 69, the Irish High Court refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against Facebook, requiring disclosure of the identity and location of an anonymous third party operating a Facebook page containing defamatory content. The Court found that if Facebook disclosed such information it would endanger the life of the third party. The Court held that the right to a good name must give way to the right to life and bodily integrity in the event of a conflict.
EU consumers of online content services such as Netflix, Spotify or Sky Sports will soon be able to access their subscriptions while on holiday in or when otherwise visiting another Member State, due to the lifting of existing restrictions by a proposed new EU Regulation.
In an earlier blog, we outlined that the UK confirmed its intention to ratify the International Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. In December 2016, the UK government proceeded to sign the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the Unified Patent Court. The Protocol provides EU privileges and immunities to the judges of the Unified Patent Court necessary for the exercise of its functions. The Protocol is required in the individual countries hosting divisions of the court, one of which is in London. This positive step would suggest that the UK is moving closer towards ratification.