The High Court has refused a content moderator’s request for documents setting out the relationship between his former employer, CCC Essen Digital GmbH, and Meta/Facebook. The request arose during a jurisdiction challenge; the court did not decide that challenge or the underlying personal injury claims.
In a judgment delivered on 15 October 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley said the documents were not necessary for the fair disposal of the jurisdiction issue at this stage. He directed that the case be listed for mention on 23 October to discuss any related matters.
The plaintiff, Ugur Yasar, alleges he suffered serious psychological injuries after reviewing disturbing and violent content while working as a content moderator, and later as a subject matter expert, for CCC Essen. His personal injury claim, issued in 2022, is against CCC Essen and Facebook Ireland Limited. He alleges Meta/Facebook exercised a “unique and comprehensive degree of control” over the work system and may therefore be liable in tort. Those are allegations, not findings in this judgment.
CCC Essen is seeking to have service of the proceedings set aside, arguing that the Irish court lacks jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. That provision permits claims against multiple defendants to be heard together when they are sufficiently connected and separate proceedings risk irreconcilable judgments. The court had yet to hear that challenge.
Yasar sought the contract or contracts governing CCC Essen’s content moderation work for Meta/Facebook, as well as related policies and procedures. He argued that the material could help assess Meta’s alleged oversight and the connection between his claims against the two companies. CCC Essen opposed disclosure. Its position was that the jurisdiction challenge concerned whether the claims were sufficiently connected, not whether Yasar could establish a case against Meta.
The judge said disclosure during a jurisdiction challenge is exceptional and requires a clear showing that it is necessary for a fair hearing. The requested documents might bear on the strength of the substantive claim against Meta, he said, but Yasar had not shown how they would advance the Article 8 question of whether the claims were so closely connected that separate proceedings risked irreconcilable judgments.
The ruling was confined to the discovery application. It did not determine the jurisdiction challenge, whether Meta controlled CCC Essen’s work, or whether either company was liable for the alleged injuries. The judgment also referred to two related test cases, but said their outcomes would not directly bind the remaining cases.