Refutation of false information in the web

Not so long ago we published some legal advice in the article “How to protect intellectual property on the Internet?”, in which were considered relevant questions. But the urgency to refute false information in IT-sphere is that probably will not be limited in several articles. Gradually Internet in Ukraine is growing fast, although in most cases, it is not regulated by the legislative branch but by court’s decisions.

Probably most lawyers took an active discussion in the resonant court ruling LLC “Publishing Company” Justinian “and PE” Ukrainian Truth “(Case 2-2561 / 12). The main problems raised in this trial – is whether the publication site users (regardless of form – just comments or articles) that the limit of liability of Internet resources for it, and how to prove the existence of negative court papers online. Judicial authorities “decided” all these complex issues.

Thus, it appears that the owner of the domain is owning of the website and has legal responsibility for all material posted on the website as the owner was created through technological possibility and conditions for distribution and dissemination of false information. Thus, according to the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine “On judicial practice in cases of protection of honor and dignity of the individual and business reputation of individuals and legal entities” in cases where the defendant is spreading false information on the Internet is the author and website owner . The plaintiff himself must set the article’s author and the owner of the web resource for filing a claim. If it is impossible to find the author of the article or his/her residence (location), so defendant in a case will be owner of website.

On the one hand it seems like sets mandatory censorship obligated to site owners responsible for everything – and this is negative. On the other hand, plus the fact that indeed there are lots of cases where the person anonymously poured tons of dirt. For now the Internet is probably more effective than other methods of information dissemination, and moral person can be “buried”. Therefore, to refute this false information is not very difficult in court, because even if to find author maybe difficult, then find the domain owner is much easier, Such owner will be responsible for everything. Although certainly better before the lawsuits still try using lawyers to resolve the situation peacefully, as is likely, most site owners simply remove it to not have problems with the courts.

The limit of liability of web-site owners. What they threatened for publishing negative information? First of all, very unpleasant thing is publication of denial, which the injured party may ask the post in the most popular location (home or another highly visiting page) that usually does not give the site’s reputation and even takes work area that could be used in something else, for ex. Internet advertising. In addition, the court may order the owner of the site (domain) also reimburse moral damage (in practice amounts vary in the amount two to four thousand). The main recommendation is still moderate resources. But what’s about forum or other web site with easy possibility to comment? They are acting at their own risk.

Another problem is collecting evidences. If the site administrator removes this false information, for a person to prove that such information was published is not easy (to get compensation). We have previously reported that the courts rather gullible take these simple printing of web pages (in the lawsuit LLC “SPARK Press” information was circulated on websites and in newspapers, but for individuals against the politician Party of Regions, the information was posted only online, as well as in the case of PJSC “Avtokrazbank” and for the court was enough to provide printings of on-line pages). This situation was repeated in the judgment on the “Justinian”. The court proceeded from the fact that he is not an expert to verify the authenticity of printouts from the website and the defendant did not claim petitions the court for an examination on the matter. Therefore, it appears that no plaintiff, and the defendant (the site owner) must prove that the printout from the site is not real (although the level of modern technology to make such printing quite easily).

Offended should not forget that in such cases time limits reduced to 1 year (according to Part 2 of Art. 258 of the Civil Code “In this case, the statute of limitations is calculated from the date of placement of this information in the media or from the date when the person learned or could learn of this information). ” That can be proved that the person whose rights have been violated learned of the violation is not the time of publication and later.

And site owners should carefully moderate their resources or even restrict publications to third parties.

Published in “Legal newspaper” № 14 from 02.04.13 g. – P. 26

Refutation of false information in the web
You may like
A new law on virtual assets: the picture is formed, but without details. On September 8, 2021, the Verkhovna Rada has finally adopted the long-awaited law "On Virtual Assets", which clarified many ambiguous points. This is especially true for the status of cryptocurrency and the rules of its circulation in the country. Let`s take a closer look at novelties. An ambiguous term Let's start with what the legislator actually means by "virtual assets". There are the following features:  they are an intangible good (cannot be represented on tangible media)  fall under the list of objects of civil rights (that is, they can be owned and be disposed of)  represent an electronic form of a set of data (essentially, they are blocks of information put in order);  the existence and circulation of assets are due to software tools (specific electronic environment). From these features we can draw the following conclusion: virtual assets are not limited to cryptocurrency. Digital currency is part of the concept, but other instruments, such as tokens, NFTs, or even in-game items, fall under the definition. Actually, the actual existence of most digital products, having a certain value, is due to the software environment (ecosystem), either it is blockchain technology, a trading platform, or an online game server. It should be noted that the attempt to define virtual assets was already made in the adopted Law of Ukraine in counteracting money laundering. In this act, they understand it as digital means of payment, which goes against the new definition. As a result, there are now two different explanations for virtual assets, which causes significant confusion not only in regulation but also in interpretation. It is definitely necessary to expect clarifications from competent state bodies. Let's return to the new law. Its application covers legal relations in which the "Ukrainian element" is present:  provider or recipient of services represented in Ukraine;  an agreement according to which the turnover of virtual assets is carried out in accordance with Ukrainian legislation;  the acquirer of assets (or both counterparties) is a resident(s) of Ukraine. The law also introduces an interesting division of all virtual assets into two groups: secured and unsecured. Here again, there is a problem of interpretation. The first category includes products exchanged for (state) currency, the second category includes instruments that can be exchanged only for other digital assets. There is an alternative opinion: that the turnover of secured assets is supported by real goods (money or other property), while unsecured ones are not supported by anything. The latter interpretation is the most credible, as the new law stipulates that virtual assets are NOT means of payment. Moreover, they cannot be exchanged for real goods, be they property, services or money. This significantly narrows the potential for the use of virtual assets not only for commercial but also for civilian purposes. About obligatory licensing The new law states that in some cases, the use of virtual assets will require licensing. The 4 types of activity are mentioned:  storage and management of virtual assets (or its` keys)  servicing of exchange operations with virtual assets (both for other analogues and for real goods);  translation of digital assets;  any intermediary services. A list is quite impressive, but there are some important exclusions:  if your service works with cryptocurrency wallet (it means users can dispose of accumulations into cryptocurrency independently);  If your service works on smart contracts or decentralized protocol, based on which internal transfers are performed. As to intermediary services, everything is more compicated. Actually, any mediation is based on the public share offering. That is why it is subject to licensing. How to get a license? A company that wishes on legal grounds to engage in virtual assets must satisfy legislative requirements. The key role is played by the minimum amount of the statutory capital, which equals 1,19 million hryvnyas (for non-residents it is 5,95 million hryvnyas) in case of storage and administration. For other types of activity (trading, translation and mediation services) the minimum size of the statutory capital amounts to 595 thousand hryvnyas (for non-residents is 2,98 million hryvnyas). The order of the registration of license:  to compose an application and prepare documents.  to pay state fee (68-136 thousand hryvnyas for residents and 340-680 thousand hryvnyas is for non-residents).  to pend review of the request (30 days).  to get a license. The duration of the license is 1 year. No norms about the continuation of legal force of permission are set (we are expecting amendments or explanations from the Ministry of Digital transformation of Ukraine). Notably that non-residents must pay a far greater sum, than domestic companies. The Ukrainian legislator obviously encourages an internal market, getting rid of a strong foreign presence (that, in fact, coincide with modern politics of the state on the whole). Together with an application, the following documents must be prepared: The access code to the copy of the Statute of the company (or the foundation agreement) kept in an electronic file in the database of the Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations (USREO);  Funding sources of the statutory capital (where the money are taken from);  confirmation of the actual injection of money;  information about beneficiaries (special attention must be paid to business reputation);  the information about the director and founders;  the check about payment of state fee;  the internal regulations, in accordance with which ones, the privacy policy rules are regulated. In the terms of volume of necessary documentation of licensing is very alike with complete registration of legal entity. It is understood that the state wants the severe adjusting of activity of organizations that will engage in virtual assets. Is it already possible to get a license? The adoption of the law by the parliament is a significant step forward in adjusting and legal market of virtual assets creation in Ukraine. However, the new rules haven`t come into effect yet - their term of introduction depends on making amendments in the Internal Revenue Code. It is yet unknown, when a legislator will decide to enter the renewed system of taxation for such assets. Being "IT-hub" and territory, where cryptocurrency enjoys large popularity, the question of taxes must be decided maximally safely. Despite the presence of obvious gaps in interpretation, a new law on virtual assets gives the official narrative of what takes place and that, how the legal relationships related to cryptocurrency will be regulated. It is to be hoped that in the nearest time the Ministry of digital information will give out the detailed explanations concerning debatable norms.

We will
call you