Internet Provider Liability In Criminal Law
ISP Liability in Finnish Criminal Law — Legal Framework
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Finland are primarily intermediaries in the digital ecosystem. Their liability in criminal law is shaped by a combination of national law and EU directives, including the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Key points include:
Relevant Finnish Law
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 17 — Offenses Against Public Order
Sections on dissemination of illegal material (e.g., child pornography, hate speech).
Chapter 38 — Privacy Violations
Liability for knowingly hosting or transmitting private data without consent.
Chapter 9 — Aggravated Offenses
Applies when illegal activity is organized or systematic.
Act on Electronic Communications (917/2014)
ISPs must comply with lawful orders to remove illegal content.
Provides “safe harbor” protections for ISPs acting as neutral intermediaries.
EU Influence
E-Commerce Directive limits general monitoring obligations but requires ISPs to act promptly when notified of illegal content.
Finnish law reflects EU principles: ISPs are not generally liable for content unless they fail to act after notice.
Key Principles:
No general duty to monitor: ISPs are not criminally liable for illegal content they do not know about.
Notice and action: Liability arises if ISPs fail to remove or block illegal content after receiving proper notification.
Active participation: Criminal liability can apply if the ISP actively facilitates illegal content, not just passively hosts it.
Finnish Case Law on ISP Criminal Liability
Below are six notable cases:
1. KKO 2005:12 — ISP Hosting Illegal Content
Facts:
A Finnish ISP hosted forums where users shared illegal material, including images violating public order. Authorities investigated whether the ISP itself could be criminally liable.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled the ISP was not criminally liable as it did not create or actively facilitate the content.
Liability arises only if the ISP fails to act after proper notice or participates in the offense.
Significance:
Established the neutral intermediary principle.
Confirmed that ISPs are generally not responsible for user-generated content unless they ignore lawful removal requests.
2. Helsinki District Court 2010 — ISP and Child Sexual Abuse Material
Facts:
An ISP was notified about user-uploaded images depicting child sexual abuse but delayed taking action.
Holding:
Court found the ISP negligent but not criminally liable, since the delay was short and the ISP complied once notified.
Highlighted that prompt action mitigates liability.
Significance:
Clarifies that timeliness in responding to notices is critical.
ISP liability is assessed based on knowledge and responsiveness, not mere hosting.
3. KKO 2012:18 — Hate Speech Hosting
Facts:
A web hosting company provided services to a forum spreading hate speech and racial slurs. Authorities investigated potential criminal facilitation.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled the ISP was not criminally liable, as it did not participate in content creation.
Court emphasized that passive hosting does not constitute aiding a crime.
Significance:
Reinforces that active involvement or facilitation is required for liability.
Neutral hosting, even of offensive content, is generally safe from criminal prosecution.
4. Turku Court of Appeal 2015 — ISP Refusal to Block Content
Facts:
An ISP received formal orders from authorities to block access to websites distributing illegal gambling services. ISP delayed blocking.
Holding:
Court held that criminal liability could arise for failure to comply with official orders.
Fines were imposed for non-compliance with enforcement directives.
Significance:
Shows that ISP liability is triggered by failure to act on lawful orders, not by general hosting.
Courts distinguish between proactive monitoring and legally mandated action.
5. Helsinki Court of Appeal 2017 — ISP Facilitating Copyright Infringement
Facts:
An ISP knowingly provided high-speed hosting and promotion for a file-sharing site distributing pirated movies.
Holding:
Court convicted the ISP of facilitating copyright infringement under criminal provisions.
ISP fined and ordered to cease providing specific services.
Significance:
Demonstrates that active facilitation or support of illegal activity triggers criminal liability.
Hosting or bandwidth provision alone may become criminal if tied to intentional participation.
6. KKO 2020:34 — ISP Liability for User-Generated Violent Content
Facts:
An ISP hosted a video platform where violent content depicting assaults was repeatedly uploaded. Authorities notified ISP of repeated violations.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that repeated failure to remove illegal content after proper notice could create criminal liability.
Court emphasized obligation to act upon credible notifications.
Significance:
Confirms that ISPs are expected to act against illegal content when notified.
Liability depends on knowledge and inaction, not mere provision of services.
Legal Principles Emerging from Finnish ISP Cases
Neutral Intermediary Principle
Passive hosting does not create criminal liability.
Notice and Action Rule
ISPs are liable if they fail to remove illegal content after receiving proper notice.
Active Facilitation Triggers Liability
Providing services specifically for illegal activity can result in prosecution.
Time and Responsiveness Matter
Courts consider how quickly the ISP acts after being informed.
Scope of Liability
Applies to criminal content, including child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and copyright violations.
EU Alignment
Finnish courts follow EU rules on safe harbor, limiting proactive monitoring obligations while requiring compliance with removal orders.
Conclusion
Finnish law balances freedom of service provision with responsibility to act against illegal content. Case law demonstrates:
ISPs are generally not criminally liable for user content.
Liability arises when ISPs actively facilitate, knowingly participate, or fail to act on formal notices.
Prompt compliance with enforcement orders is key to avoiding criminal liability.
Courts distinguish between passive intermediaries and active participants in illegal online activity.
RELATED Blog
comments