Division III of the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters of the City of Buenos Aires confirmed that Federal Courts have jurisdiction to decide those cases involving activities that are carried out through the Internet.
In re “RPB S.A. v. Google de Argentina S.R.L. and other re/ habeas data”, Docket No. 3,332/15/CA1, RPB S.A. filed a habeas data action against Google of Argentina S.R.L. seeking the blocking or restriction to access by any means to websites, forums, or URL addresses that lead to different pages responding to the following phrases: “Baggio slug” and/or “look what is inside of a Baggio” and/or “a slug in Baggio juice”. The action was founded on section 43 of the Argentine Constitution and Personal Data Protection Law No. 25,326 which governs the habeas data action. This action is aimed at allowing an individual or legal entity to access his/her information stored in a database and request and obtain the correction, update and/or removal of false, inaccurate or outdated information.
The lawsuit was filed with the Federal District Court in Civil and Commercial No. 3 Court, which rejected the case and ruled that the National First Instance Justice on Commercial Matters has jurisdiction to hear the case.
However, and in accordance with the Prosecutor’s opinion, the Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters reversed the district court decision and ordered the First Instance Court to resume the previously declined jurisdiction.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals cited its own precedents in previous cases on the subject that follows the Supreme Court of Justice case law, which provides that Federal Justice has jurisdiction over matters referred to activities that are conducted over the Internet –global communication means that allow interjurisdictional actions- (Division I, Docket No. 1.252/12; Division II, Docket No. 978/10; Division III, Docket No. 10.646/08). In that regard, the Supreme Court of Justice in re “Giménez Aubert, María Susana v. Yahoo de Argentina S.R.L. and other re/ precautionary measures” (Docket No. C.1190.XLII) and “Rondinone, Romina Inés v. Yahoo S.R.L. and other re/ precautionary measures”(Docket No. C.915.XLII), both dated February 27, 2007, highlighted that the main purpose of the claim was the protection of plaintiffs’ name and physical image, which are related to the publication, use, promotion and commercialization of activities conducted through the Internet, a circumstance that allows supporting the federal jurisdiction in the case.
Thus, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld this position deciding that the cases concerning activities that are conducted through the Internet are under the scope of the federal jurisdiction.