The study of the criminal liability of digital platforms for illegal content has gained increasing importance in light of rapid digital transformation and the growing reliance on digital platforms as primary channels for the circulation of information and the formation of public opinion. These platforms now play an active and central role in the media sphere and can no longer be regarded as merely neutral technical intermediaries. Rather, they have developed a tangible capacity to influence content through its dissemination, amplification, or restriction, a development that has generated complex legal challenges relating to the protection of individual rights, the preservation of public order, and the maintenance of societal stability within the digital environment. The significance of this research stems from its engagement with a contemporary legal issue concerning the delineation of the scope of the criminal liability of digital platforms for illegal content disseminated to a wide audience of internet users, particularly in view of the increasing spread of false and misleading news (fake news) and content that infringes reputation and private life or threatens social peace. The significance of the study is further reinforced by its effort to establish a precise legal balance between the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, on the one hand, and the prevention of harm to the rights of others and to societal interests, on the other, through an analysis of the legislative foundations governing such liability. The core research problem revolves around the question of how to strike a reasonable balance between safeguarding the right to express opinions and disseminate digital content, while at the same time protecting the rights of society and individuals, and determining the scope of the criminal liability of digital platforms for illegal content made available to the public through their services.

Achieving this objective requires an effective and balanced approach to combating illegal content, one that takes into account the specific characteristics of the digital environment and the role of platforms as intermediaries between content creators and the public. Accordingly, this research seeks to analyze the legal framework governing the criminal liability of digital platforms for illegal content and to clarify the conditions for the establishment and the limits of such liability through a comparative study of Emirati and French legislation. The study adopts a comparative methodology supported by an analytical approach, based on the examination and analysis of legislative texts relevant to the criminal liability of digital platforms for illegal content under UAE law, in particular the provisions of the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes and related supplementary legislation regulating electronic publication and criminal liability. It likewise examines, under French law, the provisions of the Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN), the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881 insofar as it applies to digital content, as well as the relevant penal provisions of the French Penal Code. These frameworks are analyzed in light of the general principles of criminal liability, with the aim of deriving findings and recommendations that contribute to the development of criminal policy in addressing illegal content and in achieving a secure and balanced digital space.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) was adopted by the European Council and the European Parliament on 13 October 2022.¹ It aims to protect users of digital platforms from illegal content and, more broadly, to ensure the provision of a safe and trustworthy digital environment.² Article 4 of the DSA defines illegal content as any information, whether considered independently or in connection with any activity—including the sale of products or the provision of services—that does not comply with European Union law or with the law of a Member State insofar as it aligns with EU law.³

Similarly, Article 3(h) of the DSA defines “illegal content” ⁴as any information that, in itself or in relation to an activity, including the sale of products or the provision of services, is not in compliance with Union law or the law of any Member State which is in compliance with Union law, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law.

This definition emphasizes the conformity of content with national and European legal frameworks, while assigning digital platforms a supervisory responsibility to monitor and remove infringing material. It also reflects a degree of flexibility, as the precise contours of illegal content are left to be determined by the national laws of each Member State.

Examples of illegal content under DSA include hate speech and incitement to violence, the promotion of terrorism or related materials, child exploitation and illegal sexual content, infringements of intellectual property rights, and the dissemination of misleading information that affects public order or the safety of communities.⁵

Some scholars draw a distinction between illegal content and unsafe content. Illegal content refers to material that explicitly violates the law, such as incitement to violence or the dissemination of false news threatening social peace, whereas unsafe content encompasses material that may negatively affect brands or undermine trust in a platform without necessarily constituting a legal violation.⁶

Certain legal scholars argue that illegal content should be defined with reference to its nature and impact, describing it as the opposite of serious, purposeful, and lawful content—namely, content unsuitable for publication that affronts public taste and public morals through the dissemination of words, images, or videos, including comedic material, presented in an irresponsible or unreflective manner, reaching the level of triviality and contravening prevailing social customs and traditions⁷. It has also been defined as “any act or conduct related to the production and dissemination of topics containing content that breaches public morals or offends public taste.”

Others contend that the definition of illegal content depends on identifying acts that exceed the limits of freedom of expression and adversely affect public order,⁸ such as incitement to violence, hate speech, and media manipulation. They further argue that the absence of international consensus on this concept constitutes a significant challenge in combating its spread across digital platforms.⁹

Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union indicates that European judicial practice has not provided a comprehensive or precise definition of illegal content,¹⁰ instead addressing specific manifestations of such content within the context of applying European legislation. For instance, in the “right to be forgotten” case (2019)¹¹, the Court examined individuals’ rights to the removal of inappropriate or excessive content without articulating an overarching definition of illegal content. Similarly, other cases, such as those concerning data protection in the “YouTube case” (2020)¹² and cookies in the “Planet49 case” (2019),¹³ focused on violations of privacy and intellectual property rights without engaging in a direct conceptual definition.

This approach reflects the European judiciary’s reliance on legislative instruments, such as the DSA and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), to delineate the legal framework of illegal content, as these instruments define its scope by reference to non-compliance with national or European law. Consequently, the role of the European judiciary is primarily confined to interpreting and applying these legislative provisions, rather than formulating a comprehensive legal definition.¹⁴

In contrast, the Emirati legislator defines “media content” in Article 1 of Federal Decree-Law No. 55 of 2023 Regulating Media as “Read, audio, visual, or digital material that contains information, data, opinions, and any intellectual, artistic, cultural, social, economic, cinematic, or musical production, or any similar humanitarian, or promotional or advertising production, which is published through the media in all its forms for expression, distribution, marketing, publication or broadcast, for or without compensation; and it does not include what has the characteristic of private correspondence”.

The Emirati legislator further defined “illegal content” in Article 1 of Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes as “the content whose subject constitutes one of the crimes punishable by law, or whose publication, circulation or recirculation inside the UAE would compromise the UAE's security, sovereignty or any of its interests, the public health, or public peace assurance, or the friendly relations between the UAE and other countries, or would affect the results of elections of members of the Federal National Council (FNC) or of the Consultative Councils of the emirates of UAE, or would incite hostility and hatred among different groups of persons, or would decrease the public's confidence in any of the government authorities' or entities' performance of any duty or task or exercise of any powers”. The definition also encompasses false data, namely rumors and false or misleading information.¹⁵

Some scholars further define illegal content as any content that infringes the rights of others, including defamation, violations of privacy, incitement to hatred, infringements of copyright, and discrimination against individuals or groups on any basis.¹⁶

In light of the foregoing, illegal digital content may be defined as written, audio, or visual material produced and disseminated through digital platforms that contravenes applicable legal norms.¹⁷ Judicial practice has supported this view, holding that such content results from a deliberate violation of an explicit and clear provision of positive law.

In Europe and France, the legal liability of Internet service providers is premised on a presumption of neutrality—automatic and mechanical in nature—with respect to their role in the dissemination of illegal content. This gives rise to a form of “attenuated” liability, closely aligned with the well-known Anglo-American maxim “Do not shoot the messenger.”²⁰ It would be unjust to hold accountable for illegal digital content a party that merely enabled its circulation without knowledge thereof. In this regard, Article 8 of the DSA provides that “No general obligation to monitor the information which providers of intermediary services transmit or store. …”

Article 6 of the French Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy of 2004 draws a clear distinction between providers of access to the internet, whose role is limited to the transmission of data or the provision of network access without interference in content, and hosting service providers, who enable users to store and disseminate digital content via their servers.²¹ French courts have consistently affirmed this distinction in a number of judicial decisions, most notably in cases relating to the Dailymotion platform, which have become a seminal judicial reference in defining the scope of platform liability for illegal content. In these cases, the courts were called upon to determine whether Dailymotion should be classified as a content publisher—thereby incurring automatic liability for illegal content—or merely as a hosting service provider subject to a mitigated liability regime. The Paris Civil Court, whose reasoning was upheld by the French Court of Cassation,²² concluded that Dailymotion qualified as a hosting service provider (hébergeur) rather than a publisher. This conclusion was grounded in the fact that the disputed content was created and uploaded by users without any prior editorial intervention by the platform, and that the platform’s role was confined to providing the technical infrastructure necessary for storage and public access. On the basis of this characterization, the courts held that the platform’s liability does not arise merely from the presence of illegal content on its servers. Rather, liability is contingent upon proof of actual knowledge of the illegal content, which is established only through a clear and specific notification identifying the infringing content, followed by the platform’s failure to act expeditiously to remove it or disable access to it. In this context, French courts have emphasized that the platform’s intervention must be prompt and free from unjustified delay (promptement), considering this standard to strike a delicate balance between avoiding the imposition of prior monitoring obligations that would undermine freedom of expression, and ensuring the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and society. This judicial approach reflects the French courts’ adoption of the concept of mitigated liability for hosting service providers, linking the establishment of liability to two cumulative elements: notification and failure to respond effectively. This approach subsequently influenced European and French legislative intervention aimed at imposing clearer and, in certain categories of harmful content, more stringent obligations.²³

As for the Emirati legislator, it has, in principle, affirmed the same rule of non-liability of internet access and hosting service providers for illegal content.²⁴ Article 19 of the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes stipulates the punishment of any person responsible for managing a website or electronic account who publishes data or information that does not comply with media content standards. Likewise, Article 17 of the same law criminalizes the management, establishment, or use of a website or account on an information network for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a crime. Accordingly, UAE law does not include internet access and hosting service providers within the scope of criminal liability for illegal content.

However, if internet access and hosting service providers depart from their passive and neutral role with respect to the content disseminated through their services, does their criminal liability then arise?

Digital platforms are not subject to a general obligation of monitoring or to an active duty to search for illegal content generated by users, pursuant to Article 4 of DSA, on the ground that such monitoring would infringe fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The same principle is enshrined in Article 6 of the French Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy.²⁵

It should be noted that Article 6 of the aforementioned French law establishes a fundamental principle, namely that digital platforms are not liable for illegal content published by users unless they have been notified by users or by administrative or judicial authorities that such content is illegal and have failed to act expeditiously to remove it. In such a case, the platform may be deemed to have knowledge of criminal conduct and may incur liability for concealing an offence through omission to remove the content (Article 434-1 of the French Penal Code), for endangering a minor (Article 223-2 of the French Penal Code),²⁶ or for failure to comply with lawful orders.

Under UAE law, the provision of illegal content and the failure to remove it are criminalized pursuant to Article 53 of the Federal Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes. This provision imposes a fine of not less than AED 300,000 and not exceeding AED 10,000,000 on any person who uses a website or electronic account to commit any of the following acts:

Article 1 of the same law defines “Writs of Correction and Removal of False Data” as: "The notices issued by the competent authorities to one or more persons for correcting, removing or deleting illegal content, or to correct, remove, or delete false information or data in the form or manner those authorities deem appropriate during the period stated in the notice.”

It further defines “Disable Orders” as: “The notices issued by the competent authorities to an information network broker through which illegal content or false data is published. Under this notice, the broker is required to disable, in the form or manner deemed appropriate by these authorities, users' access to the said content or data within the period stated in the notice.”

Accordingly, the UAE legislator has introduced a specific legal provision within the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes, criminalizing many acts related to illegal content, namely:

Pursuant to the aforementioned Articles 53 and 1, the criminalized acts relate to a specific person or several persons. As for paragraph (2) of Article 53, which criminalizes the failure to comply with orders issued by the competent authority, where such orders concern the disabling of access to illegal content within the period specified in the notification, and where non-compliance is intentional and without acceptable justification, criminal liability then arises for the digital platform (as an information network intermediary) through which the illegal content was made available or published, on the basis of its knowledge of the illegal content through notice.³⁶

UAE law does not specify a fixed period for notice requiring removal or disabling of illegal content, leaving such determination to the discretion of the competent authority issuing the removal or disabling order.

The Emirati legislator has classified the aforementioned acts as misdemeanors punishable by a financial penalty that may reach AED 10,000,000. This penalty applies both to individuals who create or publish illegal content and to digital platforms that fail to comply with orders issued to them to disable users’ access to such content.

Accordingly, the UAE legislator has confined the criminal liability of digital platforms in relation to illegal content to cases involving failure to disable access to such content following the issuance of an order by the competent authority, where such failure is unjustified (Article 1 of the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes, in defining disabling orders).

By contrast, writs of correction and removal of false data are directed at individuals rather than digital platforms. In this regard, it is submitted that it would be appropriate to expand the scope of digital platforms’ obligations to include the removal of illegal content, as such action falls within their technical capabilities and is more effective than merely disabling access to illegal content, in line with the approach adopted by the French and European legislators.

In addition, the UAE legislator has not specified time limits relating to acts of correction, removal. From the perspective of safeguarding individual rights and freedoms, particularly in matters of criminalization and punishment, it would be appropriate for the UAE legislator to determine reasonable time limits, upon the expiry of which failure to comply with orders of correction, removal, or disabling access would give rise to criminal liability for illegal content under the law.

It may also be observed that Article 53 of the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes exhibits an overlap in criminalization with respect to failure to remove illegal content and to prevent access thereto. Paragraph (a) criminalizes non-removal by stating “and failed to initiate its removal,” as well as failure to prevent access by stating “or prevent access to such content.” Paragraph (b) of the same article then criminalizes failure, in whole or in part, to comply with orders issued by the competent authorities under the same law, which include orders for correction, removal, or disabling access to content. This reveals a clear overlap and duplication in the criminalization of the same acts. The impact of this overlap is mitigated, however, by the fact that the UAE legislator has prescribed a single penalty for all such acts, namely a fine ranging from AED 300,000 to AED 10,000,000, which the judge may individualize depending on the persons subject to liability and the nature of the criminalized acts committed.

Given that legislation is presumed to be characterized by precision in drafting and clarity in the rules governing criminalization and punishment, it would be incumbent upon the UAE legislator to amend Article 53 by confining the criminalization under paragraph (a) to acts of storage, making available, and publication of illegal content, and reserving paragraph (b) for the criminalization of failure to comply with orders issued by the competent authorities relating to the removal or blocking of such content from public access.

Accordingly, the approach adopted by the UAE legislator in introducing a direct provision criminalizing acts related to illegal content, whether committed by individuals or by legal persons such as digital platforms, may be regarded as more effective, albeit in need of reinforcement through the addition of custodial penalties of appropriate duration and supplementary sanctions, such as temporary bans on the exercise of professional activity, in order to achieve the required deterrent effect.

At the level of judicial application, UAE judicial practice demonstrates the rigorous enforcement of Federal Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes in relation to digital content involving abuse, defamation, or the dissemination of illegal information. By way of example, a local court in one of the Emirates issued a judgment in 2025 ordering the payment of AED 70,000 in civil compensation for abusive and unfair comments published on social media platforms. This civil sanction followed prior criminal convictions arising from the same digital conduct, illustrating that the judiciary does not hesitate to hold unlawful online publication accountable and takes into consideration its impact on individual rights, public order, and personal reputation, in line with the general principles governing the criminalization of making available or failing to remove illegal content under Article 53 of the same law.³⁷

Moreover, a strong trend has emerged in 2025 toward referring users of digital platforms to the Public Prosecution for cases involving violations of digital publication standards, including the dissemination of misleading information or content contrary to media and cybercrime legislation. The National Media Office has indicated that such referrals form part of enhanced oversight of electronic content and the imposition of legal accountability on all those who misuse digital media.³⁸

Furthermore, UAE cybercrime legislation is also applied to individuals who publish online content intended to harm others, whether through defamation or insult, with penalties that may include substantial fines or additional criminal sanctions in certain cases under the Penal Code and cybercrime laws. This reflects an integrated judicial approach that links the management or publication of digital content with criminal liability, whether through digital platforms or personal online accounts. ³⁹

This judicial approach is consistent with Article 53 of the Law on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes, which criminalizes the storage, making available, or publication of illegal content, as well as the failure to remove such content following official orders or the failure to comply with disabling orders within the prescribed period. It demonstrates that the practical application of the law by the courts addresses unlawful digital publication in a manner that goes beyond theoretical legislative regulation to a tangible judicial reality that sanctions unlawful conduct and affirms the liability of those who commit it or who fail to comply with the legal orders issued in relation thereto.⁴⁰

It should be noted that the French legislator has not enacted a single, unified legal provision criminalizing acts related to illegal content—such as storage, publication, failure to remove content, or disabling access thereto. Instead, criminalization is addressed through dispersed provisions across several legislative instruments, each tailored to the nature and category of the digital content concerned. An example of this is Article 227-23 of the French Penal Code, which criminalizes a number of acts relating to images or representations of children in sexually explicit or indecent situations.

Moreover, French law has not generally criminalized, through a broad and abstract provision, the failure to remove illegal content regardless of its nature, as is the case under UAE law. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to Article 6-1-2 of the 2022 Law on Combating the Dissemination of Terrorist Content, pursuant to which the failure to remove terrorist content or to prevent access thereto within one hour of receipt of a removal or blocking notification from the competent authority constitutes a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of EUR 250,000.

In the same context, Article 6-2-1 of the 2024 French Law on Securing and Regulating the Digital Space provides for the criminalization of the failure by hosting service providers (digital platforms) to remove illegal content where such content consists of images or representations of children in sexually explicit or indecent situations, within twenty-four hours from receipt of a removal notification from the competent authority. This offense is likewise punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of EUR 250,000.⁴¹

In cases of recidivism, or where the perpetrator is a legal person such as a digital platform, the penalty may consist of a fine of up to 4% of the annual global turnover, in addition to a supplementary sanction in the form of a prohibition on engaging in the relevant professional activity for a period not exceeding five years.

In light of the foregoing, it becomes apparent that the French legislator’s approach to regulating the liability of digital platforms for illegal content is based on a specialized and fragmented framework, calibrated according to the nature and severity of the content concerned, without introducing a comprehensive and general provision criminalizing the failure to remove or disable access to illegal content in absolute terms, as is adopted in some comparative legal systems. By contrast, the UAE approach is characterized by the enactment of a direct and unified legislative provision criminalizing acts related to illegal digital content, whether in the form of storage, making content available, publication, or failure to comply with orders for removal or disabling access, thus ensuring legislative clarity and facilitating the application of rules governing criminal liability.

Nevertheless, a comparison between the two systems reveals that the strength of regulatory frameworks is not measured solely by the unity or fragmentation of legislative provisions, but also by the effectiveness of the sanctions prescribed. While UAE legislation is marked by simplicity and clarity in terms of the structure of criminalization, French legislation is distinguished by greater severity in its punitive regime, particularly through the combination of custodial sentences, turnover-based fines, and supplementary measures such as bans on the exercise of professional activity. These sanctions possess a significant deterrent effect, especially with respect to major digital platforms.

This divergence reflects a difference in criminal policy philosophy between the two systems: whereas the UAE legislator emphasizes the regulation of unlawful conduct through a comprehensive and general provision, the French legislator seeks to deter serious digital risks through targeted legislative interventions supported by stringent sanctions. Consequently, achieving an effective balance in addressing illegal digital content requires combining clarity and comprehensiveness in criminalization on the one hand, with effective deterrence and proportionality of sanctions to the gravity of the content and its societal impact on the other.

Digital platforms constitute the principal intermediary through which digital content is transmitted to a wide audience of Internet users, rendering them pivotal actors in shaping public opinion and directing societal discourse. Given the potential of illegal digital content to infringe upon individual and collective interests of significant importance, its uncontrolled dissemination may contribute to destabilizing communities and undermining trust in the digital space. Consequently, establishing clear legal liability for digital platforms—particularly in cases where they are aware of illegal content yet fail to remove it or restrict access—represents a fundamental mechanism for fostering a safer and more stable digital environment. The comparative study between UAE and European legislation, notably French law, has yielded a series of findings and recommendations.