Court decision · 26 April 2022
Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council (Article 17 DSM)
Case C-401/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:297 · Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)
What it means for your code
An automated takedown pipeline needs an appeals path and must not block material it cannot confidently classify — over-blocking is itself the legal risk.
What happened
Poland challenged the obligation on content-sharing platforms to prevent the reappearance of infringing works, arguing it required general filtering that would chill lawful expression.
What was decided
The obligation is compatible with freedom of expression only because it is accompanied by safeguards: platforms must not be required to block content whose lawfulness they would have to assess independently, and users need complaint and redress mechanisms for wrongful removals.
The legal test applied
- Preventive filtering obligations interfere with freedom of expression and require safeguards
- Platforms must not be required to block content whose lawfulness they would have to assess independently
- Users need an effective complaint and redress mechanism against wrongful removal
What would have changed the outcome
- Filtering limited to exact matches of clearly identified works, with an appeal path, is within the safeguards
Summary and analysis by Lawpatch, checked by an editor against the source. Risk analysis, not legal advice; the law may have moved on since this decision.