Liability of Platform Owners in the year 2024 (the case of Pavel Durov and Elon Musk)

The arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram, in France raises significant legal challenges and potential implications for global technology platforms. The arrest stems from accusations related to Telegram’s alleged failure to adequately moderate illegal content, such as child pornography and drug trafficking, on its platform. This incident has sparked a broader debate about the extent of responsibility that platforms like Telegram should bear for the content shared by their users.

One of the primary legal challenges involves the tension between freedom of speech and the need for effective content moderation. Platforms like Telegram have traditionally operated with a strong commitment to user privacy and minimal interference, relying on encryption to protect user data. However, this hands-off approach has drawn criticism and legal scrutiny, particularly in regions like the European Union, which has implemented regulations like the Digital Services Act to mandate more rigorous content moderation practices.

Durov’s arrest may set a precedent for holding platform owners personally accountable for the content hosted on their services. This could lead to a cascade of legal actions against other tech company executives, fundamentally altering how platforms operate and manage user-generated content. Furthermore, this case underscores the complexities of enforcing national laws on global platforms, where actions taken in one jurisdiction can have far-reaching effects across multiple regions.

The ongoing legal proceedings in France will likely shape the future of digital platforms and may influence other nations to adopt similar measures. As the situation develops, it will be closely monitored by both the technology industry and legal experts for its potential to redefine the boundaries of platform liability and user privacy in the digital age.

The international position on the liability of platform owners has been evolving, reflecting the increasing role of digital platforms in society and the challenges associated with regulating them. The general approach can be summarised as follows:

1. United States – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: The U.S. has traditionally provided strong protections for online platforms through Section 230, which generally shields platform owners from liability for user-generated content. This provision has been pivotal in allowing platforms to grow without fear of being held legally responsible for the vast amount of content they host. However, there has been growing debate in the U.S. about reforming Section 230, particularly concerning harmful content like hate speech, misinformation, and illegal activities.
2. European Union – Digital Services Act (DSA): The EU has taken a more interventionist approach. The DSA, which came into effect in 2023, imposes stricter obligations on platforms, requiring them to take proactive measures to remove illegal content, including hate speech and misinformation. The DSA also introduces transparency requirements and imposes significant fines for non-compliance. Under this framework, platform owners can be held liable if they fail to remove illegal content in a timely manner after being notified.
3. Other Jurisdictions: Various countries have adopted their own approaches, often influenced by either the U.S. or EU models. For example:
   • Australia has implemented the Online Safety Act, which empowers the eSafety Commissioner to issue takedown notices and impose fines on platforms that fail to remove harmful content quickly.
   • India introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which impose obligations on platforms to remove unlawful content and require significant social media intermediaries to appoint compliance officers.
   • China maintains strict control over platforms, requiring them to monitor and censor content that violates state regulations, with severe penalties for non-compliance.
4. Emerging Trends: There is a growing global trend towards holding platforms more accountable for content moderation. This is particularly evident in areas like child protection, anti-terrorism, and misinformation. However, this trend is often balanced against concerns about overreach, censorship, and the impact on freedom of speech.

The international position on platform liability is still in flux, with ongoing debates about the appropriate balance between holding platforms accountable and preserving the open nature of the internet. As platforms become more integral to daily life, the legal frameworks governing them are likely to continue evolving .

In Pakistan, the legal liability of platform owners is governed by a combination of statutes and regulatory frameworks, primarily centered around the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 and the associated rules. PECA, which was enacted to address cybercrime, places certain responsibilities on intermediaries, including platform owners, regarding the content hosted on their platforms.

Key Aspects of Pakistan’s Position on Platform Liability:

1. Intermediary Liability: Under PECA 2016, platform owners and intermediaries are generally not held liable for third-party content if they act as mere conduits. However, they can be held liable if they fail to remove or disable access to content after receiving actual knowledge of its illegality. This is aligned with the concept of “notice and takedown.”

2. Content Regulation: The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has broad powers under PECA to direct platforms to remove or block access to content that is deemed illegal, such as content that threatens the integrity, security, or defense of Pakistan, or is considered blasphemous, obscene, or defamatory. Failure to comply with such directives can result in significant penalties, including fines and potential blocking of the platform within the country.

3. Recent Developments: The Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight, and Safeguards) Rules, 2021 were introduced to provide more detailed procedures for the enforcement of content regulation under PECA. These rules have been controversial, with critics arguing that they grant the government extensive powers to censor online content and impose liability on platforms in a way that could stifle free expression.
4. Government Oversight: The PTA is responsible for enforcing compliance with these regulations. Platform owners are required to establish mechanisms for rapid compliance with takedown notices and to ensure that unlawful content is removed promptly.
5. Challenges and Criticisms: The approach in Pakistan has faced criticism both domestically and internationally for potentially infringing on freedom of speech and for imposing onerous obligations on platform owners. Human rights organizations have expressed concerns that the broad and vague definitions of illegal content could lead to arbitrary enforcement and suppression of dissent.

While Pakistan’s legal framework does not hold platform owners strictly liable for all user-generated content, it does impose significant responsibilities on them to monitor, regulate, and remove unlawful content, with considerable penalties for non-compliance. This reflects a more interventionist approach compared to jurisdictions like the United States but is somewhat aligned with trends in other countries that prioritize content regulation.

Was Durov dealt a fair hand?

The legal and moral fairness of what has happened to Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, can be evaluated from multiple perspectives, considering both legal principles and ethical considerations.

Legal Fairness:

From a legal standpoint, Durov’s arrest appears to align with the increasing global trend of holding tech platform owners accountable for the content on their platforms. The French authorities’ actions can be seen as an enforcement of existing laws aimed at ensuring that digital platforms do not become havens for illegal activities, such as the dissemination of child pornography or drug trafficking. Given that Telegram is known for its strong encryption and relatively light content moderation, the arrest might be legally justified under the notion that platform owners should ensure their platforms are not used for illegal purposes.

However, it is also important to consider that such enforcement actions must be carried out with due process. Durov’s legal rights must be respected, and the charges against him should be clear and based on specific legal violations. The fairness of this legal action would depend heavily on the transparency of the proceedings and the application of the law in a non-discriminatory manner.

Moral Fairness:

From a moral perspective, the situation is more complex. On one hand, there is a moral imperative to protect society from harmful content, particularly when it involves serious crimes like child exploitation. Holding platform owners responsible for allowing such content to proliferate can be seen as morally justifiable, especially if they have the means to prevent it but choose not to.

On the other hand, there is a moral argument concerning the protection of freedom of speech and privacy. Telegram has been a platform that many people use to communicate securely and privately, often in contexts where freedom of speech is restricted. Durov’s arrest raises concerns about the potential chilling effect on other tech entrepreneurs and platforms that might be forced to compromise on privacy to avoid legal consequences.

In essence, the moral fairness of Durov’s arrest depends on one’s perspective on the balance between protecting public safety and upholding individual freedoms. If Durov is found to have deliberately ignored or facilitated illegal activities on Telegram, many would argue that his arrest is morally justified. Conversely, if the arrest is perceived as part of a broader crackdown on privacy-focused platforms, it could be seen as morally questionable.

Updates on the telegram founders arrest and any legal actions

The latest updates on Pavel Durov’s arrest in France reveal that he has been formally charged with multiple counts, including enabling illegal activities such as child exploitation, drug trafficking, and money laundering on Telegram. Durov is currently prohibited from leaving France and must report to the police regularly as part of the judicial process. He faces the possibility of up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the charges, which focus on Telegram’s alleged failure to moderate illegal content effectively.

Durov has strongly contested the accusations, stating that the arrest is “misguided” and that Telegram complies with international standards, including the European Union’s Digital Services Act. He argues that platform owners should not be held responsible for all user actions, especially given Telegram’s encryption model, which limits the company’s ability to monitor content directly. Telegram has since announced efforts to improve content moderation, although it continues to defend its strong stance on privacy and free speech.

The situation has sparked international tensions, particularly between France and Russia. Russian officials have criticized the arrest, framing it as politically motivated and suggesting that Western governments may be attempting to gain access to private data on Telegram. France, on the other hand, denies any political motive, with President Macron affirming that the actions are strictly legal, aimed at upholding the rule of law and protecting public safety.

This case highlights the broader global debate on the legal responsibilities of tech platforms, particularly concerning content moderation, user privacy, and freedom of expression.

The case of Elon Musk 

The lawsuit filed by Olympic boxer Imane Khelif against Elon Musk, J.K. Rowling, and other public figures highlights an increasing trend of holding platform owners and influential individuals accountable for online harassment. Khelif’s legal action, stemming from cyberbullying and defamatory comments about her gender identity during the 2024 Olympics, focuses not only on those who posted the offensive content but also on Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), for amplifying such messages. The lawsuit underscores the evolving legal landscape where platform providers, like Musk, can face scrutiny not just for hosting content but for their personal involvement in shaping or amplifying online harassment. In France, the criminal complaint allows the authorities to investigate not only known figures but also anonymous individuals behind offensive posts, reflecting a broad approach to tackling online hate.

When compared to Pavel Durov’s arrest over Telegram’s alleged failure to moderate illegal content, both cases illuminate the increasing pressure on platform owners. Durov’s case primarily focuses on platform liability for failing to prevent illegal activities such as drug trafficking and child exploitation, whereas Khelif’s lawsuit targets personal accountability for influential figures, including a platform owner, for perpetuating harmful narratives.

Legally, both cases reflect a growing trend where platform owners are no longer shielded by the anonymity of their platforms or their passive roles. However, Durov’s case revolves around the complexities of content moderation and encryption, making it more about systemic platform governance, whereas Khelif’s lawsuit brings attention to how platform owners’ personal actions and posts can directly incite harm. Both cases, while distinct, are paving the way for greater legal accountability for platform providers globally.

The fact that both lawsuits, one against Elon Musk by Imane Khelif and the other against Telegram founder Pavel Durov, are taking place in France is significant in terms of how their liability might be viewed and the potential success of the legal actions. France, within the context of the European Union, is subject to strong regulations concerning online platforms and the responsibilities of their owners, particularly following the introduction of laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Impact on Liability:

1. Legal Framework in France: France is bound by the DSA, which imposes stringent obligations on digital platforms regarding content moderation and user protection. This is relevant for both Durov’s and Musk’s cases, as French laws, underpinned by EU regulations, place increasing responsibility on platform owners to prevent the proliferation of illegal or harmful content. In Durov’s case, Telegram’s alleged failure to control illegal activities such as child exploitation and drug trafficking directly engages France’s interest in enforcing content moderation. Similarly, in Musk’s case, X (formerly Twitter) falls under the same scrutiny, especially with regard to cyberbullying and hate speech, areas where France has strong legal precedents.
2. French Judiciary’s Stance on Platform Liability: French courts have shown willingness to hold both platform owners and influential figures accountable, especially in cases involving harassment or the failure to prevent harm. For instance, France’s commitment to combating online hate speech and cyberbullying is evident in Khelif’s lawsuit, where French laws enable broad investigations of both identifiable and anonymous perpetrators. This legal framework supports not only the targeting of content creators but also the platform owners, if they are found to be complicit by amplifying or failing to address harmful content.
3. Enforcement and Jurisdictional Reach: France’s legal system, under the auspices of EU law, allows for the prosecution of cross-border cases. In Khelif’s lawsuit, her lawyer noted that the French prosecutor’s office could seek mutual legal assistance from other countries, including the U.S., to hold figures like Musk accountable This cross-border enforcement could have significant implications for both Musk and Durov, as France’s jurisdiction could extend to other regions where their platforms operate, further strengthening the likelihood of their liability being upheld.

Chances of Success:

1. Durov’s Case: Given France’s regulatory environment and the gravity of the allegations against Telegram (drug trafficking, child exploitation), the legal action against Durov has substantial weight. If the authorities can prove that Telegram systematically failed to moderate illegal content, the case against Durov could succeed. The EU’s Digital Services Act provides a strong basis for imposing penalties on platforms that fail to comply with moderation requirements.
2. Musk’s Case: While Khelif’s lawsuit deals more with personal harassment and Musk’s role in amplifying harmful messages, the French legal system’s focus on preventing online hate speech could work in Khelif’s favour. France’s robust laws against cyberbullying, combined with the platform owner’s potential personal involvement, increase the chances of legal success, especially given that French law allows the prosecution of both known individuals and anonymous actors involved in harassment .

The fact that both cases are occurring in France enhances the likelihood of success for the claimants due to the country’s strong regulatory framework on platform liability, its commitment to user protection, and the scope of its jurisdictional reach, especially in cases involving cross-border online harm.

1. United Kingdom – Online Safety Bill (2023): The UK passed the Online Safety Bill, which imposes strict obligations on platform owners to protect users from harmful content, especially children. The law requires platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to ensure that illegal content, such as hate speech, child exploitation, and misinformation, is swiftly removed. Failure to comply can lead to substantial fines, up to 10% of global turnover, and even personal criminal liability for senior executives if companies fail to cooperate with regulatory investigations.
2. Germany – Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG): Germany’s NetzDG, implemented in 2017 and updated in recent years, requires social media platforms to promptly remove illegal content, such as hate speech or defamation. The law specifically targets platform owners and mandates that they put processes in place to respond to complaints about illegal content. Companies like Facebook and Twitter have been fined under this law, which has been influential in shaping similar regulatory approaches across Europe.
3. Australia – Online Safety Act (2021): Australia’s Online Safety Act places strong content moderation obligations on platform owners to remove harmful material, particularly that which pertains to child abuse and cyberbullying. Platforms can be fined or blocked within Australia if they fail to comply. This law also gives power to the country’s eSafety Commissioner to order the takedown of harmful content within a short timeframe, further increasing the legal risks for platform owners .
4. United States – Section 230 Debate: Although the U.S. has long protected platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from liability for user-generated content, there has been increasing pressure to reform this law. High-profile incidents like the role of platforms in amplifying disinformation during the 2020 U.S. election and the Capitol riots have led to renewed calls for holding platform owners responsible for harmful content. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have proposed amendments to Section 230 to introduce greater accountability for platforms .
5. European Union – Digital Services Act (2023): The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a landmark EU regulation that mandates online platforms to take proactive measures against illegal content, disinformation, and harmful content. Platform owners must ensure transparency in their algorithms, content moderation policies, and provide users with the ability to contest moderation decisions. Fines for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s global turnover. The DSA also includes the possibility of sanctions on senior management if systemic failures occur

These cases and developments demonstrate a growing international trend where platforms are expected to do more than merely provide a neutral service. Governments are increasingly requiring platform owners to take active roles in moderating harmful content or face legal consequences, signaling a broader global shift toward digital accountability.

Other noteworthy recent international legal updates regarding platform liability and digital content moderation 

1. India’s New Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023)

India recently enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), which aims to regulate how personal data is processed by both domestic and international entities operating in India. The law strengthens individuals’ rights over their data and introduces compliance obligations for tech platforms. One key aspect is holding platforms accountable for data breaches and misuse, which could result in heavy penalties. This law reflects India’s move toward stricter regulation of tech companies and mirrors the GDPR in Europe.

2. Canada’s Online News Act (2023)

Canada passed the Online News Act, which requires platforms like Facebook and Google to compensate Canadian news organizations for sharing their content. This is part of a broader global trend, similar to Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, where platforms are being held accountable for how they distribute and profit from journalistic content. The law sparked backlash from tech giants, who threatened to block news content in Canada, similar to what happened in Australia.

3. Australia’s Privacy Act Review (Ongoing)

Australia is undergoing a comprehensive review of its Privacy Act to bring its data privacy framework in line with international standards like the EU’s GDPR. Proposed reforms include greater transparency from digital platforms on how they use personal data, increased penalties for breaches, and expanded rights for individuals. This move comes amidst growing concern over the misuse of personal data by platforms like Facebook and TikTok, especially in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

4. EU’s AI Act (Pending)

The EU AI Act is expected to be one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation regulating artificial intelligence. It will place restrictions on how platforms use AI-driven algorithms, particularly in content moderation, facial recognition, and decision-making systems. The legislation seeks to ensure accountability by requiring transparency in algorithmic processes, and holding platform owners liable for the misuse or harmful impact of their AI tools.

5. United States – Antitrust Lawsuits Against Big Tech

Several antitrust cases have been launched in the U.S. against major tech platforms like Google, Amazon, and Meta (Facebook). These cases argue that these platforms have abused their market dominance to stifle competition and harm consumers. The outcomes of these lawsuits could significantly alter how tech platforms operate and may force companies to break up certain aspects of their business, as seen with historical cases like Standard Oil and AT&T.

6. China’s Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law (2021)

China has implemented the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law, which impose strict rules on how platforms handle user data. These laws focus on national security and cybersecurity concerns, requiring companies to store user data locally and adhere to stringent data protection protocols. Non-compliance can result in heavy fines and restrictions on business operations. The laws signal China’s tightening grip on tech companies and their control over data flows.

7. Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD) – Enforcement (2023)

Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD), which came into effect in 2020, has entered into stricter enforcement phases, where non-compliance by platforms can lead to significant penalties. The LGPD mirrors many aspects of the EU’s GDPR and is part of Brazil’s broader initiative to increase accountability for tech platforms regarding data handling and privacy rights.

8. South Korea’s Amendments to Telecommunications Business Act (2021)

South Korea amended the Telecommunications Business Act to prevent platform owners like Google and Apple from forcing app developers to use their in-app payment systems. This was a major blow to the business models of these platforms, and the law is part of a global movement to curb the market power of large digital platforms over smaller businesses and consumers.

Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889

Email : [email protected]

https://joshandmakinternational.com