Latest news with #ConlethBradley
Irish Examiner
12 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Watchdog orders Elon Musk's X to clarify how it will protect children on its platform
Ireland's media regulator has ordered Elon Musk-owned X to clarify how it will protect children on its platform or risk 'criminal liability', it has said. Coimisiún na Meán said it was using its statutory powers to compel X, formerly Twitter, to provide information on how it will comply with specific sections of the Online Safety Code, which has been challenged by X through a judicial review in the High Court. 'Information provided by X so far is not sufficient to assess whether X's current measures are sufficient to protect children using the service,' it said. 'Under Part A of the Code, designated platforms must establish and operate age verification systems for users with respect to content which may impair physical, mental, or moral development of minors.' The Online Safety Code sets binding rules on major platforms that also include Facebook and YouTube to prohibit harmful content like cyberbullying, racism, or incitement to hatred. It also makes it incumbent on platforms to have robust age assurance such as verifying a passport photo to prevent children from seeing pornography or gratuitous violence online, as 'merely asking users whether they are over 18 will not be enough'. Set to fully come into force next month, the code is binding on platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, X, Linkedin, Pinterest, Udemy and Tumblr. A number of judicial reviews have been launched by firms objecting to the code, including by X. A judgement is set to be delivered in this case by Mr Justice Conleth Bradley on July 25. While that remains pending, Coimisiún na Meán has said it is exercising its powers to tell X it must provide information relating to its compliance with the Online Safety Code. 'X is obliged to respond by July 22, 2025,' it said. 'Failure to comply with the notice by the provider can result in criminal liability, including a fine of up to €500k. 'An Coimisiún will review the response from X and will consider whether the platform has complied with its obligations under Part A of the Online Safety Code and will then determine if further measures should be taken. X was designated by Coimisiún na Meán as a video-sharing platform service in December 2023 and is consequently obliged to comply with the Online Safety Code. It comes after big tech firms including X were hauled in for a meeting with media minister Patrick O'Donovan on Monday with age verification high on the agenda. Separately, European commissioner for justice Michael McGrath has said that new European laws will prevent children from being exposed to 'dark patterns' online while new age checks will stop them accessing harmful content like pornography. He said that investigations into major platforms like Meta's Instagram and Facebook, TikTok and several pornographic websites are ongoing to ensure they are complying with child protection rules. 'The internet should be a place of opportunity for children, not a minefield of risks,' Mr McGrath said. Read More European laws will prevent children accessing harmful content online
Irish Times
30-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Facebook content moderators cannot sue for psychological injuries in Ireland, court rules
A number of Facebook 'content moderators' cannot pursue legal actions in Ireland over claims they suffered serious psychological injuries from being exposed to graphic and violent content, the High Court ruled. The cases, which related to people who worked under contracts with German and Spanish outsourcing firms, were brought in the Irish High Court because Facebook operator Meta, which is also a defendant in the actions, has its European headquarters in Dublin. One of the cases was brought by a man who worked for German company CCC Essen Digital between 2018 and 2019 in Essen under a contract of employment to which Meta was not a party but merely outsourced the work to CCC. A second case was brought by another man who also worked for CCC Essen while a third was brought by a woman working for CCC Barcelona Digital Services in Spain. READ MORE It is alleged in the personal injury proceedings that Meta engaged the CCC firms for the purposes of recruiting and hiring content moderators. While they were employed by the CCC firms, which owed a duty of care, it is alleged they were working under the ultimate control and direction of Facebook/Meta. The claims are denied. The three cases were among around 30 against Facebook/Meta and against various other companies who were engaged to assist in the social media giant's content moderation services. Of the 30 cases, about one-third involve a co-defendant outside of Ireland, while 20 cases involve a co-defendant in Ireland. The CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona firms asked the High Court to first decide whether Ireland was the correct jurisdiction for hearing the personal injury actions the three had brought. The companies said Ireland was not the correct jurisdiction while the plaintiffs argued that as Meta was the 'anchor defendant', they should be heard here. The three cases were considered by the High Court as representative for deciding the jurisdiction question. This was on the understanding that any decision was not binding directly on the remaining 27 cases but that it would provide some assistance in the resolution of the balance of the actions. All three people were content moderators, later called 'subject matter experts', who ensured compliance with Meta/Facebook's implementation standards for online content. Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled Ireland did not have jurisdiction. He said the central focus of the jurisdiction issue, common to all three cases, concerned the application of an EU regulation governing the bringing of actions and issues related to the domicile of a defendant (the Brussels I Recast regulations). The judge said he determined that the three plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite close connection and risk of irreconcilable judgments in Ireland as against Germany/Spain as per the requirements of Article 8(1) of the regulations. He therefore said he would make orders that the High Court of Ireland does not have the jurisdiction to hear the cases. On Wednesday, the judge said he would give judgment later on costs and on an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal his decision.
BreakingNews.ie
30-04-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Facebook content moderators cannot pursue actions for psychological injuries in Ireland
Several Facebook "content moderators" cannot pursue legal actions in Ireland over their claims that they suffered serious psychological injuries from being exposed to graphic and violent content, the High Court has ruled. The cases, which related to people who worked under contracts with German and Spanish outsourcing firms, were brought in the Irish High Court because Facebook operator Meta, which is also a defendant in the actions, has its European headquarters in Dublin. One of the cases was brought by a man who worked for the German company CCC Essen Digital Gmbh between 2018 and 2019 in Essen under a contract of employment to which Meta was not a party but merely outsourced the work to CCC. A second case was brought by another man who also worked for CCC Essen, while a third was brought by a woman working for CCC Barcelona Digital Services SLU in Spain. It is alleged in the personal injury proceedings that Meta engaged the CCC firms for the purposes of recruiting and hiring content moderators. While they were employed by the CCC firms, which owed a duty of care, it is alleged they were working under the ultimate control and direction of Facebook/Meta. All of the claims are denied. The three cases were among around 30 against Facebook/Meta and against various other companies that were engaged to assist in the social media giant's content moderation services. Of the 30 cases, about one-third involve a co-defendant outside of Ireland, while 20 cases involve a co-defendant in Ireland. The CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona firms asked the High Court to first decide whether Ireland was the correct jurisdiction for hearing the personal injury actions the three had brought. The companies said Ireland was not the correct jurisdiction, while the plaintiffs argued that as Meta was the "anchor defendant", they should be heard here. The three cases were considered by the High Court as representative for deciding the jurisdiction question. This was on the understanding that any decision was not binding directly on the remaining 27 cases but that it would provide some assistance in the resolution of the balance of the actions. All three people were content moderators, later called "subject matter experts", who ensured compliance with Meta/Facebook's implementation standards for online content. Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled Ireland did not have jurisdiction. Ireland 'Depraved paedophile': Former soldier jailed for s... Read More He said the central focus of the jurisdiction issue, common to all three cases, concerned the application of an EU regulation governing the bringing of actions and issues related to the domicile of a defendant (the Brussels I Recast regulations). The judge said he determined that the three plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite close connection and risk of irreconcilable judgments in Ireland as against Germany/Spain as per the requirements of Article 8(1) of the regulations. He therefore said he would make orders that the High Court of Ireland does not have the jurisdiction to hear the cases. On Wednesday, the judge said he would give judgment later on costs and on an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal his decision.
Irish Examiner
30-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Facebook 'content moderators' unable to pursue actions for psychological injuries in Ireland
A number of Facebook "content moderators" cannot pursue legal actions in Ireland over their claims they suffered serious psychological injuries from being exposed to graphic and violent content, the High Court has ruled. The cases, which related to people who worked under contracts with German and Spanish outsourcing firms, were brought in the Irish High Court because Facebook operator Meta, which is also a defendant in the actions, has its European headquarters in Dublin. One of the cases was brought by a man who worked for German company CCC Essen Digital Gmbh between 2018 and 2019 in Essen under a contract of employment to which Meta was not a party but merely outsourced the work to CCC. A second case was brought by another man who also worked for CCC Essen while a third was brought by a woman working for CCC Barcelona Digital Services SLU in Spain. It is alleged in the personal injury proceedings that Meta engaged the CCC firms for the purposes of recruiting and hiring content moderators. While they were employed by the CCC firms, which owed a duty of care, it is alleged they were working under the ultimate control and direction of Facebook/Meta. The claims are denied. The three cases were among around 30 against Facebook/Meta and against various other companies who were engaged to assist in the social media giant's content moderation services. Of the 30 cases, about one third involve a co-defendant outside of Ireland, while 20 cases involve a co-defendant in Ireland. The CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona firms asked the High Court to first decide whether Ireland was the correct jurisdiction for hearing the personal injury actions the three had brought. The companies said Ireland was not the correct jurisdiction while the plaintiffs argued that, as Meta was the "anchor defendant", they should be heard here. The three cases were considered by the High Court as representative for deciding the jurisdiction question. This was on the understanding that any decision was not binding directly on the remaining 27 cases but that it would provide some assistance in the resolution of the balance of the actions. All three people were content moderators, later called "subject matter experts", who ensured compliance with Meta/Facebook's implementation standards for online content. Wednesday's ruling Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled Ireland did not have jurisdiction. He said the central focus of the jurisdiction issue, common to all three cases, concerned the application of an EU regulation governing the bringing of actions and issues related to the domicile of a defendant (the Brussels I Recast regulations). The judge said he determined that the three plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite close connection and risk of irreconcilable judgments in Ireland as against Germany/Spain as per the requirements of Article 8(1) of the regulations. He therefore said he would make orders that the High Court of Ireland does not have the jurisdiction to hear the cases. On Wednesday, the judge said he would give judgment later on costs and on an application by the plaintiffs for leave to appeal his decision.
