Introduction
In an era marked by unprecedented technological transformations, digital rights have become an essential component of human rights. Individuals and institutions are increasingly exposed to violations ranging from censorship and mass surveillance to data privacy breaches. In this context, strategic litigation has emerged as a legal tool aimed at achieving structural changes, not only by protecting the direct parties involved in specific cases but also by generating broader impacts on public policy and legislation.
The importance of strategic litigation in digital rights is growing due to its ability to draw attention to critical issues such as freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy protection. In its broader sense, strategic litigation goes beyond resolving individual disputes before courts; instead, it aims to bring about structural changes in laws, policies, and practices.
Strategic litigation in digital rights issues aims to clarify ambiguous legal concepts, develop new standards for protecting rights in the digital space, and hold accountable the entities responsible for violations. It can also be used to bridge legislative gaps that fail to keep pace with the ongoing technological developments.
This paper discusses how strategic litigation can be used in digital rights cases. It explores the concept and forms of strategic litigation, the opportunities it offers, as well as the challenges that hinder its use. The paper also presents local and international experiences in employing strategic litigation within the context of digital rights.
Strategic Litigation in the Context of Digital Rights
Strategic litigation in digital rights uses legal proceedings to achieve systematic and lasting changes in policies or practices that affect digital rights. This type of litigation focuses on issues arising from the interaction between human rights and technology, such as protecting privacy and personal data, freedom of expression online, and combating mass surveillance.
Strategic litigation in this field aims to achieve a wide-ranging legal or social change that goes beyond resolving an individual dispute to impact society as a whole. It differs from general strategic litigation by specializing in technology-related issues, such as regulating the use of algorithms and holding large tech companies accountable for user rights violations.
This type of litigation requires a combination of legal and technical expertise, as well as a deep understanding of the digital environment. It seeks to shape fair digital policies and promote transparency and accountability, which contribute to protecting individuals’ fundamental rights in the digital age.
Digital Rights as the Embodiment of Human Rights Principles in the Digital Environment
Digital rights are not a new concept separate from human rights, but rather a natural extension of them and an embodiment of their principles in the digital age. In fact, human rights such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and equality take on new forms in the digital environment. For example, the protection of personal data represents an evolution of the right to privacy, while ensuring access to the internet is an embodiment of the human right to access information.
As reliance on technology increases, the challenges facing digital rights have become more evident, necessitating their full integration into the comprehensive human rights framework. From this perspective, strategic litigation in the field of digital rights must complement and run parallel to the efforts made over decades in strategic litigation related to human rights in general.
Drawing parallels to the impactful role of landmark cases in social justice and minority rights that have shaped legal frameworks, strategic litigation is equally crucial in the realm of digital rights. It should leverage past experiences in similar fields to contribute to the evolution of digital rights laws and policies.
The Role of Strategic Litigation in Promoting Criminal Justice in the Digital Age
With the accelerating technological development, new forms of violations have emerged that were not possible in the past, presenting unprecedented challenges to the protection of human rights. Among the most prominent of these violations is breaching privacy through a large-scale collection of personal data without users’ consent.
Governments and companies track individuals’ online activities, analyze their data, and sell it to third parties, posing a direct threat to the right to privacy. Mass surveillance has also emerged as one of the most dangerous challenges, with governments relying on technologies such as facial recognition, smart cameras, and spyware to monitor citizens on a large scale.
These violations are characterized by their transboundary nature, making it difficult to address them through traditional litigation mechanisms that typically focus on individual disputes. Therefore, tackling these challenges requires a strategic and collective approach, such as advocating for the enactment of global legislation to regulate the use of data and technology.
One of the most prominent examples of such legislation is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. The GDPR applies to any entity processing the personal data of individuals residing in the EU, regardless of the entity’s location.
Legal actions can also be launched to bring about structural changes, such as appealing mass surveillance policies or unauthorized data collection practices. For example, in 2021, Amnesty International won a court ruling in a case it filed with several human rights organizations against mass surveillance programs in the United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s mass surveillance system violated privacy rights.
The aim of these lawsuits was not only to obtain compensation for the affected individuals but also to change the laws and practices that allowed mass surveillance. In this context, strategic litigation addresses these violations by setting legal precedents, building international alliances among human rights organizations, and applying pressure on governments and large corporations.
Strategic Litigation as a Vital Tool to Confront New Actors
In the realm of digital rights, the stakeholder landscape is characterized by its diversity and complexity. The stakeholders encompass governments, individuals, civil society, and most importantly, big tech companies and telecommunications service providers.
These companies have gained significant influence due to their control over the flow of information, management of personal data, and development of technologies that impact fundamental human rights. Big tech companies are not merely economic entities; they hold immense power that requires specialized legal tools to address and confront, such as strategic litigation.
Big tech companies possess vast financial and legal resources that give them a significant advantage in traditional legal disputes, making conventional litigation insufficient to ensure their accountability. This is where strategic litigation plays a crucial role—not only aiming for limited legal victories but also seeking to bring about structural changes in policies and practices.
Additionally, this approach relies on building alliances among technologists and civil society to form a united front capable of confronting the dominance of these companies. It also aims to raise public awareness about digital issues and push for legal and regulatory reforms that address the structural imbalances in the relationship between individuals and these corporations.
For example, strategic litigation can focus on issues such as the transparency of targeted advertising or challenging discriminatory decisions resulting from AI, thereby highlighting the impact of these policies on society as a whole. Overall, the unique nature of big tech companies necessitates the adoption of flexible and innovative legal tools, such as strategic litigation.
Strategic Litigation Amid Technological Complexities and Legislative Ambiguity
Strategic litigation is gaining increasing importance amid the major challenges facing the field of digital rights. One of the most prominent of these challenges lies in the misinterpretation and lack of clarity in existing laws. Most of these laws were enacted in earlier contexts that did not consider the rapid technological developments, leading to legal loopholes exploited by certain entities, whether governments or corporations.
The technical aspect also emerges as an additional obstacle, as cases involving technology require a deep understanding of digital systems and their complexities. This understanding may be lacking among courts or traditional legal parties.
Strategic litigation offers an effective tool to address these gaps, as it guides the judicial system toward interpreting laws more accurately and comprehensively in line with current technological challenges. These cases can also serve to highlight legal loopholes and push for legislative reforms that holistically address these issues.
In addition, strategic litigation enhances judicial awareness of the importance of the technological context and its associated challenges. This helps in building a judicial system that is more capable of handling complex digital cases.
It also provides civil society and human rights organizations with an opportunity to steer public discourse toward the need for legislation and policies that keep pace with technological developments, thereby strengthening the protection of individuals’ digital rights.
Challenges of Using Strategic Litigation
Before addressing the potential challenges facing strategic litigation in digital rights, it is essential to acknowledge the general challenges accompanying this type of litigation across its various forms and contexts.
Strategic litigation is a powerful tool for social change and the reinforcement of rights. Yet, it faces a range of complex and interlinked challenges that require a comprehensive approach and a nuanced understanding to address them effectively. These challenges are not confined to a specific legal or geographic framework but span legal, procedural, economic, social, and political dimensions.
- One of the most prominent challenges lies within the judicial environment itself. Some judicial systems lack independence or efficiency, making them ill-equipped to handle complex human rights cases fairly and effectively. This weakness can lead to contradictory rulings or prolonged delays in resolving cases. Such issues undermine the impact of strategic litigation and diminish its ability to bring about the desired change.
- The enforcement of court rulings is a fundamental challenge. At times, even after securing judgments that uphold rights and freedoms in strategic cases, those rulings may face resistance from the concerned parties, such as governments or major corporations. Implementing such rulings may require long-term legislative reforms or complex executive measures, which can significantly reduce the actual impact of the verdict.
- Strategic litigation also faces challenges related to the length and complexity of the proceedings. These cases often take years to resolve, exhausting the parties involved and draining their resources.
- Proving collective harm is a significant challenge, especially in cases aimed at protecting the rights of specific groups in society. In many cases, the harm is indirect or difficult to measure accurately, which weakens the case and limits its legal impact.
- The high financial costs of litigation pose an additional obstacle. Strategic cases require significant financial resources to cover lawyer fees, experts, and procedural costs. This undermines the ability of small organizations or individuals with limited resources to pursue such cases, especially when they are against powerful entities with substantial financial capabilities.
Challenges of Using Strategic Litigation in Digital Rights Cases
Legislative and Regulatory Environment
Technology-related laws are often outdated and fail to keep pace with rapid developments in the digital field. For instance, data protection laws may not cover new practices of collecting and analyzing big data.
This allows companies and governments to circumvent laws by exploiting legal loopholes, making it difficult for lawyers to prove violations or build a strong case. Additionally, some laws may be contradictory between countries or lack clear definitions of fundamental concepts like “digital privacy” or “informed consent.”
Technical Challenge
Cases related to digital rights heavily rely on technical aspects such as how algorithms work, encryption, and data management. These aspects are often complex and require specialized technical knowledge.
The lack of lawyers or judges with this understanding can lead to the dismissal of technical evidence or its misinterpretation. For example, in facial recognition cases, courts may not have sufficient knowledge of the accuracy of algorithms or the biases they may carry, which weakens the legal argument.
Proving Digital Harm
In many cases, harm in digital rights cases is intangible or indirect. For example, in mass surveillance cases, it is difficult to prove that a specific individual has suffered direct harm due to their data being tracked.
This differs from traditional damages, such as financial or physical harm, which can be easily measured. The lack of ability to prove harm makes the case less convincing to the court, leading to the possibility of the lawsuit being dismissed or not resulting in binding judgments or rulings with broad impact.
Lack of Legal Precedents
Courts lack legal precedents to rely on due to the novelty of digital rights cases. This absence makes judges more cautious when considering digital cases, as they do not have previous examples to help them understand the legal and technical aspects of the case.
Facing the Interests of Big Tech Companies and Service Providers
Big tech companies possess vast resources that enable them to hire specialized legal teams to defend their policies. These companies often use extremely complex and lengthy terms of service to justify their practices.
Furthermore, powerful entities might employ political and economic leverage to undermine legal challenges. This could involve lobbying governments to enact legislation that safeguards their interests or issuing threats to move their investments between nations.
For example, in 2021, during discussions about an Australian law mandating tech companies to pay for news content, both Meta and Google threatened to withdraw their services from Australia. These threats successfully influenced amendments to the law that ultimately served the companies’ interests.
Cross-border Cases
Digital violations are rarely confined to a single country. For example, an individual’s personal data may be collected in one country, processed in another, and then sold to a third party in yet another country.
This complexity raises jurisdiction and law enforcement challenges, as there may be contradictions between local and international laws or difficulties in compelling foreign parties to comply with court rulings.
Resistance of Political and Legislative Parties
Governments that rely on spyware or collaborate with major companies are often hesitant to support legal efforts aimed at undermining these practices. In some cases, governments may amend laws or introduce new legislation to hinder litigation. This weakens the effectiveness of judicial rulings and makes it difficult to bring about significant changes in policies or practices.
For example, after the German government faced constitutional appeals on its use of spyware, it passed a law in 2017 allowing for the “surveillance of wired and wireless telecommunications from the source.” This legitimized practices that courts had previously questioned.
Opportunities for Strategic Litigation in Digital Rights Cases
Establishing Binding Legal Precedents
Strategic litigation in digital rights offers an opportunity to establish binding legal precedents that can serve as future references in digital-related cases. Such precedents can address existing legal loopholes and help provide a clear legal framework for protecting digital rights. They also contribute to expanding the scope of legal protections and offering stronger safeguards for users.
For example, in 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the Safe Harbor Agreement between the European Commission and the United States. This agreement allowed U.S. companies to self-certify their commitment to EU data protection standards, thereby enabling them to receive personal data from the European Union.
The court determined that the agreement lacked sufficient safeguards for personal data transferred to the United States. This was particularly due to U.S. surveillance laws granting public authorities extensive access to such data. Consequently, the ruling compelled thousands of U.S. companies relying on Safe Harbor for transatlantic data transfers to seek alternative legal methods to maintain these transfers while guaranteeing data protection.
Promoting Transparency and Accountability
Strategic cases force technology companies, service providers, and governments to disclose their practices related to data management and the use of technology, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability.
For example, a legal case may compel a company to reveal details about its algorithms, data collection policies, or page bans, and other practices. This enables researchers and activists to analyze these practices and assess their alignment with human rights standards.
For example, the case of Carpenter v. United States before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 revealed previously undisclosed practices by telecommunications service providers regarding the retention of geographic location data. The case compelled service providers to disclose in detail how they collected, stored, and shared such data with law enforcement agencies without court orders. The resulting decision established the principle that the government’s acquisition of smartphone location data constitutes an inspection that requires a warrant.
Stimulating the Development of Appropriate Legislation
Strategic litigation is crucial in shaping digital rights law by revealing gaps and inadequacies in current legal frameworks. By bringing these shortcomings to light, strategic cases can serve as a catalyst for legislative action.
For example, litigation that demonstrates the weaknesses of existing data protection laws when applied to big tech companies can pressure lawmakers to create new, more robust legislation. This updated legislation would likely include stricter data protection requirements for such companies.
Promoting Users’ Digital Rights
Strategic litigation can empower individuals to assert their digital rights and increase their understanding and capacity to safeguard these rights. For instance, a favorable court decision regarding a user’s right to erase their personal information could strengthen this right and obligate technology companies to offer mechanisms allowing users to control their data effectively. This process fosters a digital rights culture where individuals are encouraged to protect their privacy and online freedoms.
Forms and Examples of Strategic Litigation
Strategic litigation can take various forms and patterns, and selecting the appropriate approach depends on the nature of the case and the desired outcomes. Typical forms of strategic litigation include:
Litigation to Test Laws
This type of strategic litigation aims to challenge the constitutionality or legality of laws, regulations, or policies related to digital rights. It involves filing a lawsuit before the competent courts, which then examine and assess the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of a specific legal provision. In some cases, the court may also raise doubts on its own initiative regarding the constitutionality of certain laws.
Example: The Digital Rights Ireland Case vs. the Minister of Communications (2014)
In this case, Digital Rights Ireland appealed the European Union’s Data Retention Directive, which required telecommunications service providers to store users’ data for up to two years. The European Court of Justice struck down the entire directive as unconstitutional, ruling that it violated fundamental privacy and data protection rights under EU law.
Strategic Litigation to Establish Legal Precedents
This type of litigation focuses on filing cases that aim to establish new legal precedents, reinforcing digital rights protections.
Example: Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (2014)
In this case, a coalition of research libraries known as HathiTrust digitized millions of books from their collections, including copyrighted works, to create a searchable full-text database. The Authors Guild sued, claiming copyright infringement.
However, the court ruled in favor of the libraries, applying the principle of “fair use.” The decision set an important legal precedent regarding how copyright law applies to digital activities serving educational, research, and public interest purposes.
Collective/Class Action Litigation
This type is used when a large number of individuals are harmed by the same violation of their digital rights. Class action litigation allows affected individuals to file a single lawsuit on behalf of the entire group, which reduces costs and strengthens their collective position.
Example: Lenovo and Superfish Case
In 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against Lenovo for pre-installing the “VisualDiscovery” software by Superfish on its laptops. The software was deemed spyware, as it collected data on users’ online activities and displayed ads based on that data without clear user consent. The case ended in a settlement, with Lenovo and Superfish agreeing to compensate the affected users.
Litigation before International and Regional Courts
This type of litigation can be used to bring cases related to digital rights violations before international and regional courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights or the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Example: Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (2021)
A coalition of human rights organizations brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) challenging the UK’s bulk interception of communications and information-sharing practices by its security agencies. The Court ruled that the UK’s system of bulk interception violated the right to respect for private and family life, correspondence, and freedom of expression.
Litigation on Behalf of the Public Interest
This approach aims to protect the public interest in digital rights and technology by filing lawsuits by civil society organizations or concerned individuals.
Example: American Civil Liberties Union v. Director of the National Security Agency (2015)
The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the then-Director of the National Security Agency, James Clapper, challenging the agency’s bulk collection program of phone call data from American citizens. In its May 2015 ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the program exceeded the scope authorized by Congress under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Proactive Litigation
This approach involves filing lawsuits before direct harm occurs to prevent potential violations of digital rights.
Example: Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission (2019)
Mozilla filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to repeal the net neutrality rules established in 2015. The lawsuit was based on proactive arguments concerning the potential threats posed by the decision, even before its full effects were realized. This was not the only lawsuit; following the FCC’s decision, attorneys general from 22 U.S. states, along with several civil rights organizations and tech companies, filed similar lawsuits against the decision.
Using Complaint and Administrative Appeal Mechanisms
In addition to litigation in courts, complaints, and administrative appeal mechanisms can be used to challenge decisions or administrative procedures that affect digital rights.
Example: Filing a complaint with the telecommunications regulatory authority regarding a decision restricting access to specific websites.
Multifaceted Litigation
This approach involves simultaneously using diverse litigation strategies, such as filing lawsuits before different courts or using administrative complaint mechanisms alongside judicial litigation.
Example: Filing multiple appeals against an administrative decision, such as decisions related to regulating press site licenses.
The Uses and Impact of AI on Strategic Litigation in the Field of Digital Rights
Talking about artificial intelligence (AI) and its role and impacts has become essential in all cases related to digital rights. The following section discusses how to leverage AI in strategic litigation and how it can be effectively utilized to maximize outcomes.
Enhancing the efficiency of strategic litigation: AI can significantly accelerate legal research processes. AI-dependent analysis tools offer rapid search and retrieval engines of legal precedents and regulations, allowing lawyers to build robust arguments based on similar cases.
In addition, legal prediction, an evolving field of AI, can predict case outcomes based on historical data. This allows lawyers to determine the best strategies for pursuing strategic litigation. However, the reasonableness of the outcome prediction process and the narrative predictions suggested by AI must be carefully reviewed. Consideration should also be given to the algorithms and datasets on which the AI was trained, as it inherently influences the validity of its hypothesis and conclusions.
Analyzing legal texts: In complex legislative environments, lawyers and legal researchers engaged in strategic litigation often face significant challenges due to the multiplicity of interrelated legislations. This multiplicity frequently opens up various possibilities and may even lead to unhelpful outcomes if an executive regulation’s legal provision or clause is overlooked.
For example, legal provisions in media‑regulation laws might be invoked to lift a ban on a news website; however, once in court, the blocking authority could rely on provisions from other statutes, such as anti‑terrorism laws, to justify the ban. This can lead to establishing a new judicial principle that allows authorities to impose blocks for unrestrained reasons and motives, making it difficult to monitor their legitimacy.
Local Experiences in Strategic Litigation for Rights
Challenges of Strategic Litigation in the Egyptian Context
Laws related to digital rights in Egypt are rapidly evolving, but they raise deep concerns about restricting fundamental freedoms. Issuing the Anti-Cybercrime Law, the Press and Media Regulation Law, the Anti-Terrorism Law, and the anticipated amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law have created a more restrictive legal framework concerning online freedom of expression and privacy.
These laws contain vague and ambiguous provisions, such as accusations of “harming national security” and “spreading false news,” which are increasingly used to criminalize legitimate digital activities. These provisions are exploited to silence dissent and prosecute journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who express their opinions on social media platforms or share information contradicting the state’s official narrative.
Moreover, these laws grant authorities broad powers to monitor digital activities, including tracking communications and collecting personal data without providing adequate safeguards for privacy protection. These practices contribute to creating a hostile digital environment that fosters a climate of fear and self-censorship among individuals and media institutions.
These laws also serve to justify the blocking of hundreds of websites, including news and rights platforms, which constitutes a clear violation of the public’s right to access information. Digital media platforms face continuous pressure through the imposition of strict regulatory constraints and significant financial penalties, hindering the growth of this sector and limiting the diversity of independent voices. Additionally, there is a complete absence of protective laws such as data protection laws and information circulation laws, either because they are inactive or have been in preparation for many years.
The Egyptian judiciary faces multiple challenges concerning its independence and impartiality, as it has increasingly been subjected to interference from the executive authority. This raises concerns about the integrity of legal proceedings and the rights of litigants. At times, courts are used to tighten control over political opponents and activists by issuing harsh rulings in politically sensitive cases, including those related to freedom of expression and assembly.
Furthermore, the judicial system suffers from slow procedures and a backlog of cases, hindering the achievement of swift justice. In such circumstances, all these issues make the success of strategic litigation in digital rights cases in Egypt extremely difficult. However, if successful, these cases could establish important legal principles to protect the digital rights of many citizens.
Website blocking cases:
Over the past decade, Egypt has witnessed a significant increase in the practice of blocking websites without a clear legal justification. This practice began in May 2017, when many news and human rights websites and blogs were blocked, reaching nearly 600 websites, according to Masaar’s monitoring and documentation.
The authorities base their ban decisions on various laws, most notably the Telecommunication Regulation Law, the Anti-Cybercrime Law, and the Press and Media Regulation Law. These laws empower investigative bodies, national security agencies, and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation with extensive authority to block websites. This can be done under the guise of safeguarding national security or preventing the dissemination of false information or content deemed to incite violence or hatred.
The use of these laws has sparked widespread criticism. The definitions of terms used in the laws, such as “national security” and “false news,” are incredibly vague and open to interpretation. This allows authorities to use them to suppress freedom of expression and restrict access to information. The lack of transparency in the blocking procedures and the absence of effective mechanisms for challenging them are also criticized, as they reduce the opportunities for holding authorities accountable.
Despite the restrictions and challenges, the human rights and legal efforts to challenge website blocking decisions have not ceased. Many lawsuits have been filed before administrative courts and urgent judicial courts to appeal these decisions. These lawsuits were based on the claim that the blocking decisions violated the constitution and laws that guarantee freedom of expression and information circulation. While these lawsuits helped clarify some procedural aspects of website blocking, they have not radically changed the situation.
In general, the lawsuits filed to challenge website blocking decisions in Egypt have not successfully changed the public policy on blocking or overturned the laws upon which the authorities rely. However, these lawsuits have raised public discussion on the issue, documented violations, held authorities accountable, and provided legal arguments that could be referenced in the future. They also encourage the development of new legal strategies for challenging blocking decisions, such as focusing on violating international human rights standards or their disproportionate nature concerning the stated goals.
The Issue of Deprivation of Access to Communication Tools
The Anti-Terrorism Law included several measures that a court may impose in addition to the original penalty. Paragraph 7 of Article No. 37 refers to the court’s authority to impose a measure of “prohibiting the use of certain communication tools or preventing their possession or acquisition.”
Under this provision, one of the terrorist criminal courts convicted the defendant in absentia and sentenced them to ten years in prison, required them to reside in a specific location (their home), and banned them from using social media for five years.
When the trial was reopened with the defendant’s presence, their lawyer argued the unconstitutionality of this provision.
The court accepted this argument, so the defendant filed Constitutional Case No. 31 of the 40th Judicial Year on February 22, 2018, before the Supreme Constitutional Court. The court has not yet issued a ruling on this case, and it remains pending, along with fifteen other cases challenging the constitutionality of this law for various reasons, as outlined in the petitions filed in each case.
International Experiences of Strategic Litigation for Rights
The Schrems v. Facebook Case:
The case of “Schrems v. Facebook” is a prominent example of successful strategic litigation in defending digital rights. This case brought about a fundamental change in the legal frameworks governing personal data protection and international transfer.
This case was initiated by Austrian activist Max Schrems, who used available legal means to challenge Facebook’s data transfer policies, highlighting the threats posed by US surveillance programs to the privacy of European users.
Schrems’ case prompted the European Court of Justice to annul the “Safe Harbor” Agreement in 2015, reworking the legal framework governing data transfers between the European Union and the United States.
With ongoing concerns about data protection, Schrems filed another lawsuit, this time targeting the “Privacy Shield” agreement. In 2020, he achieved another victory when the court also invalidated the agreement. The court ruled in the second case that the “Privacy Shield” did not comply with the standards set by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The implications of this legal success were not limited to the theoretical framework but resulted in substantial changes to the policies of major companies such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon. These companies became obligated to find more secure alternatives for data transfers or face strict legal and regulatory consequences.
Additionally, the case heightened public awareness of the need to protect personal data as a fundamental principle of digital rights. It also pressured both European and American governments to renegotiate new mechanisms that would ensure a balance between commercial flows and privacy protection.
The EEOC vs. Amazon Case:
In 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Amazon for employee Emily Souza. Souza accused Amazon of gender discrimination and mishandling labor rights. She experienced harassment from her direct supervisor, including unprofessional phone calls and inappropriate comments.
When Souza complained about these behaviors, the company temporarily transferred her from her location in Delaware to New Jersey, negatively impacting her working conditions and promotion opportunities.
The EEOC considered these actions to create a hostile and discriminatory work environment. The commission also focused on the existence of a systemic pattern of discrimination against workers in Amazon’s distribution centers, suggesting a structural problem that required strategic legal intervention.
This lawsuit led to significant changes in the policies and practices of major companies, specifically in how they handle workers’ rights. The legal battle ended with a historic settlement in 2022, where Amazon agreed to pay the affected workers up to $10 million in compensation.
The company also committed to taking tangible and practical actions to improve its policies and practices radically. These actions included reviewing and modifying vacation policies to make them more flexible and accommodating of health conditions and the needs of workers with disabilities.
The Case of Blocking Twitter in Nigeria
In 2021, Nigeria’s government decided to ban Twitter completely “indefinitely” in response to the platform’s removal of a tweet by the Nigerian president. Twitter justified the tweet’s removal by stating that it violated platform standards and contained threats of violence.
However, the government rejected this action, viewing it as interference in its internal affairs and an infringement on its sovereignty. After seven months of the ban and negotiations, Twitter agreed to establish a legal entity in Nigeria and comply with several other conditions. In return, the ban was lifted in January 2022.During this period, the decision to ban Twitter sparked widespread reactions both locally and internationally. The ban was challenged before the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court. In a ruling issued in July 2022, the court declared the ban illegal, stating that it violated freedom of expression. The court also ordered the Nigerian government to take steps to ensure that such internet censorship would not be repeated in the future.