High Court dismisses defamation claims against domain registrar

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Hill, recently delivered a judgment in a complex case involving claims of harassment, defamation, and privacy violations brought by four claimants against multiple defendants, including a domain registrar, DNC Holdings Inc, and a web hosting company, Porkbun LLC. The case, which was heard in the Media and Communications List of the King's Bench Division, revolved around internet posts allegedly defaming the claimants.

Background

The claimants, Xiuling Wei, Weiguo Wang, Yipeng Wang, and Anastasiia Marchuk, alleged that the first defendant, Jingping Long, posted defamatory content on various websites. They further claimed that the other defendants, including DNC Holdings Inc and Porkbun LLC, were responsible for these websites and thus liable for the content.

Jurisdictional Challenges

The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts, arguing that they were not publishers of the defamatory content and thus not subject to English jurisdiction. The court had to consider whether the claimants could establish a good arguable case that the defendants were publishers at common law or under the Defamation Act 2013.

Legal Analysis

The court examined the role of DNC Holdings Inc and Porkbun LLC, concluding that as a domain registrar and web hosting service, respectively, they did not have control over the content of the websites. Mrs Justice Hill found that the defendants merely facilitated the registration and hosting of domain names, without being involved in the publication of the content.

Relief from Sanctions

The court granted relief from sanctions to the defendants for their late filing of an acknowledgment of service. The judge considered the delay non-significant in the context of the litigation and noted that the defendants acted promptly once they were aware of the proceedings.

Outcome

The court dismissed the claims against DNC Holdings Inc and Porkbun LLC, finding that the claimants could not establish a case against them as publishers. The court also set aside the order allowing service out of jurisdiction, concluding that the English courts did not have jurisdiction over these defendants.

Implications

This case highlights the challenges of establishing liability for defamatory content on the internet, particularly concerning the roles of domain registrars and web hosting services. It underscores the importance of understanding the technical and legal distinctions between different actors in the online publication process.

Costs

The court ordered the claimants to pay the defendants' costs, reflecting the general rule that the unsuccessful party bears the costs of litigation. The decision emphasized the need for claimants to carefully consider the roles and responsibilities of parties they seek to hold liable for online content.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.