{
  "id": "liability-models",
  "title": "Liability models compared",
  "chartNumber": null,
  "report": {
    "title": "Smuggling: The Role of the State and E-commerce Platforms",
    "publisher": "Insight LAC",
    "authors": [
      "Ana Basco",
      "Paula Garnero",
      "Lautaro Ramirez"
    ],
    "url": "https://estudios.insightlac.com"
  },
  "sources": [
    {
      "organization": "Insight LAC, sección 3.1",
      "publication": "Contrabando: el rol del Estado y de las plataformas de e-commerce",
      "year": 2026
    }
  ],
  "provenance": "verified",
  "note": null,
  "url": "https://estudios.insightlac.com/ecommerce/en/#modelos-de-responsabilidad",
  "attribution": "Source: Insight LAC, “Smuggling: The Role of the State and E-commerce Platforms”",
  "columns": [
    "Dimension",
    "Immunity or broad limitation of liability",
    "Liability based on actual knowledge",
    "Strict or joint liability"
  ],
  "rows": [
    [
      "What it establishes",
      "…no provider of an interactive service could be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider.",
      "This model limits the intermediary's liability for third-party content as long as it has no actual knowledge of its unlawfulness.",
      "Under this scheme, liability does not depend on proving fault or intent on the part of the party concerned…"
    ],
    [
      "Where it applies",
      "US: Communications Decency Act, Section 230",
      "European Union: E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) · European Union: Digital Services Act (EU Regulation 2022/2065) · Chile: Law No. 20,435 · Paraguay: E-Commerce Law No. 4,868 · Argentina: Rodríguez, María Belén v. Google Inc. (Supreme Court)",
      "European Union: Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products"
    ],
    [
      "Situation in Argentina",
      "Not covered in the report",
      "Rodríguez, María Belén v. Google Inc. (Supreme Court) (Ruling) · Passed by the Senate (Did not prosper) · Bill 2818-D-2025 (Pending)",
      "Bill 7089-D-2025 (Pending)"
    ],
    [
      "When the platform is liable",
      "Subsequent case law extended that immunity to cover virtually any claim arising from third-party content, with narrow exceptions for federal criminal law, intellectual property and/or sex trafficking.",
      "Liability may arise when, having acquired that knowledge under the conditions set by the applicable regime, the intermediary fails to act diligently.",
      "However, there are sector-specific regimes (especially in consumer protection, safety and product liability) that may reach certain operators when, because of the functions they actually perform, they are considered suppliers."
    ],
    [
      "Monitoring obligation",
      "Not covered in the report",
      "The scheme seeks to encourage a response to specific identified content without imposing a general obligation of prior supervision over all the activities carried out by users. … In turn, Article 8 provides that no general obligation may be imposed on providers to monitor the information they transmit or store, or to actively seek facts indicating illegal activity.",
      "Not covered in the report"
    ],
    [
      "Effects noted in the report",
      "Kosseff (2019) describes it as the 26 words that \"created the internet\", because they dismantled the Stratton Oakmont double standard and gave legal certainty both to non-intervention and to active good-faith moderation.",
      "Due diligence, by contrast, distributes control obligations according to the role each actor plays in each type of transaction, which keeps open platforms from reacting by shutting out sellers with a shorter track record, who are usually the ones that depend on the digital channel to join the formal market.",
      "In the case of e-commerce, general joint liability encourages reducing the number of sellers admitted and raising barriers to entry, since each new seller adds legal risk for the platform."
    ]
  ]
}