Category Archives: Defamation and Privacy

Elizabeth Rowe, ‘Unpacking Trade Secret Damages’

Introduction … This is the first in-depth empirical analysis of damages in trade secret cases in the US. From an original dataset developed from fifteen years of cases in federal courts, from 2000 to 2014, this Article analyzes the damages awarded on trade secret claims. In addition, a wide range of other variables are incorporated […]

Woodrow Hartzog, ‘The Public Information Fallacy’

Abstract The concept of privacy in ‘public’ information or acts is a perennial topic for debate. It has given privacy law fits. People struggle to reconcile the notion of protecting information that has been made public with traditional accounts of privacy. As a result, successfully labeling information as public often functions as a permission slip […]

‘Vicarious Liability and Data Controllers’

“The High Court (Langstaff J) has today handed down an almost 200 paragraph judgment in the first ever group litigation data breach case to come before the courts. The issue for the court was whether the defendant data controller, Morrisons, was in principle either directly or vicariously liable for the actions of a rogue employee […]

John Hartshorne, ‘The need for an intrusion upon seclusion privacy tort within English law’

Abstract In the United States, New Zealand and the Canadian province of Ontario, recognition has been afforded to privacy torts remedying intrusions upon seclusion or solitude, and the creation of such a tort has also been recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. In England and Wales, recognition has so far only been afforded to […]

Emily Laidlaw, ‘Are We Asking Too Much From Defamation Law?’

Introduction This research paper examines the question of whether we are asking too much of defamation law in a three-part paper focused on reputation, resolution and recommendations. The focus is on online defamation law. However, the kinds of resolution mechanisms explored in this paper potentially have a wider application. The research is couched in a […]

David Rolph, ‘The Ordinary, Reasonable Search Engine User and the Defamatory Capacity of Search Engine Results in Trkulja v Google Inc

Abstract The liability of search engine operators for defamation is a contentious issue that has engaged the attention of courts across the world. The principal focus of such cases is ordinarily the issue of whether the search engine is a publisher for the purposes of defamation law. The High Court of Australia will decide its […]

Margaret Byrne Sedgewick, ‘Transborder Data Privacy as Trade’

Abstract Data flows continuously across national boundaries. The current model of regulation for data privacy, an essential component for safe data flow, relies impractically on jurisdiction-specific rules. This practice impedes the benefits of data, which are increasingly a necessary and integral part of day-to-day life. A look at the history of data privacy reveals that […]

Nadezhda Purtova, ‘Do Property Rights in Personal Data Make Sense after the Big Data Turn?: Individual Control and Transparency’

Abstract This paper offers an update – from the European perspective – to the debate on property rights in personal data. It argues that recent developments in the data processing technology and practices, specifically, the AI-driven Big Data Analytics, have rendered personal data a difficult object of enforceable individual property rights. There are two main […]

Roisin Costello, ‘Warren and Brandeis and the Right to Privacy’s Hollow Core’

Abstract Beginning with Warren and Brandeis’ articulation of the right to privacy in their 1890 Harvard Law Review this paper will examine the evolution of the right to privacy and the absence of a unifying jurisprudential basis for the right at modern law. In doing so, the paper will compare the emergence of the right […]

‘Remedies in defamation and the public interest: some thoughts from the vault’

“I was interested to read Mr Justice Warby’s remarks about remedies in defamation cases in his recent address to the Annual Conference of the Media Law Resource Center. What he said was this …” (more) [Godwin Busuttil, Inforrm’s Blog, 28 October]