Meta forced to unmask anonymous Facebook users in defamation lawsuit
Meta forced to unmask anonymous Facebook users in defamation lawsuit
Tel Aviv court ruling sets precedent, bypassing user objections to disclosure.
The Tel Aviv District Court recently ordered Meta, in a precedent-setting decision, to provide the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit with identifying information about anonymous Facebook users, without giving the profile owners the opportunity to object to the order.
This ruling joins the trend of reducing the Israeli Supreme Court's Rami Mor rule and emphasizes the need for comprehensive and thorough legislation to regulate the disclosure of details about defamers, instigators of violence, privacy violators, and others who operate anonymously online. "This is a clear message to anyone who thinks that anonymity online grants them immunity," Attorney Tal Rubinov, who is representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit, told Calcalist. "Technology and the law combine to ensure that those who choose to harm others will be exposed and held accountable."
The Rami Mor ruling, handed down by the Supreme Court in 2010, ruled that the identity of an anonymous surfer cannot be revealed because there is no legislative framework in Israel that allows this, and courts cannot create such a framework through legal rulings. Despite this, over the past decade and a half, courts have, on various occasions, ordered the disclosure of anonymous surfers' details, particularly in defamation lawsuits, and have continually eroded the Supreme Court's ruling.
However, insofar as it concerns defamation or violation of privacy claims, the rulings have always conditioned the provision of personal information on the service provider or platform operator first sending the users a notice, allowing them to object to the disclosure of their identity in legal proceedings. (This is in contrast to claims regarding copyright infringement, where a 2019 amendment to the law allows for the disclosure of information unilaterally.)
In a ruling issued in November by the Deputy President of the Tel Aviv District Court, Avigail Cohen, the erosion of the status of the Rami Mor ruling expanded even further. Meta was ordered to provide the identifying details of anonymous users who allegedly published defamatory content, without allowing those users to express their objections.
The ruling was made in a lawsuit filed in September by a former senior official in a large Israeli city against Meta, demanding that it disclose identifying information (IP addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers) of a number of Facebook users who, she claims, have posted defamatory statements against her on the social network for years. These posts included unfounded accusations of criminal offenses, such as corruption, embezzlement, bid rigging, and conflicts of interest, and even falsely claimed that she had been dismissed from her position in the municipality due to misconduct.
The plaintiff, represented by Rubinov, asked the court to order Meta to disclose the anonymous users' details, citing previous court decisions where details were disclosed only after giving the users an opportunity to object. However, in the ruling issued in November, Judge Cohen ordered Meta, as a precedent, to provide the requested details within 30 days, without requiring the company to contact the users first.
Indeed, Meta provided the details without notifying the users or allowing them to object. The company disclosed the identifying details to the plaintiff and only afterward informed the anonymous profiles that a judgment had been issued requiring the disclosure of their information. By doing so, Meta ensured the users could not thwart the judgment by deleting identifying details from their profiles.
The court's decision takes on new importance in light of a move being made in the Knesset this month to regulate the disclosure of the details of anonymous slanderers. According to a bill that received the support of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation this month and was approved in a preliminary reading in the Knesset, a citizen who believes that an anonymous surfer has slandered them will be able to contact a service provider (such as internet providers, storage providers, or social networks) and request to receive the details of the anonymous user (name, address, ID number, company name, and corporate number). The provider will contact the user to request their approval for the disclosure of their details. If the anonymous user does not consent to the disclosure, the citizen will be able to petition the court to order the provider to disclose the details, which may be granted under certain conditions.
Legal and privacy experts criticized the proposal mainly for its limited scope, as it does not regulate disclosure in cases of online harms beyond defamation, such as invasion of privacy or sexual harassment. Judge Cohen's ruling, which creates a more far-reaching precedent than the bill, emphasizes the need to regulate the issue through legislation, in a broad and comprehensive manner that would address all possible harms requiring the disclosure of anonymous users' information. "The Rami Mor ruling still constitutes a significant obstacle to protecting a person's honor and reputation in the digital age," said Rubinov. "Even orders of the type granted in this case (telephone, email, and IP addresses) do not always yield the necessary information, due to the paucity of digital traces of the profile operator. The ruling emphasizes the urgent need to amend the law. The law must immediately be adapted to technological reality, similar to the amendment made to the Copyright Law, in order to create an effective mechanism for dealing with online defamers."
