France Bans Data Analytics Related to Judges' Rulings
The new legislation bans the publication of data analytics that reveal patterns in judges court decisions. The law, which calls for a prison sentence of up to 5 years for violators, is expected to have a big impact on legal tech companies.
June 04, 2019 at 06:00 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The French government has banned the publication of all data analysis related to judges' rulings in France and will impose a prison sentence of up to five years on those violating the law.
The move, believed to be the first such ban anywhere in the world, is likely to have a huge impact on legal tech and data analytics companies and also could affect in-house legal departments and law firms.
The new law, Article 33 of the Justice Reform Act, is aimed at preventing anyone—but especially legal tech companies focused on litigation prediction and analytics—from publicly revealing the pattern of judges' behavior in relation to court decisions.
“The identity data of magistrates and members of the judiciary cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analyzing, comparing or predicting their actual or alleged professional practices,” the legislation states.
However, judicial decisions in France and the names of the judges who make those decisions will continue to be made publicly available.
News of the legislation was first reported by Artificial Lawyer.
The new law was written as a direct result of an earlier effort to make all case law in France easily accessible to the general public that included the publication of judges' decisions—part of a move toward greater transparency in the French judicial system.
At the time, France's judges did not anticipate the existence of a burgeoning legal tech sector, comprised of companies that can easily use public data to analyse how judges respond to certain types of legal matters or arguments or how they compare to other judges.
Judicial decisions will still be publicly available and judges' names will not be redacted. But the new law means that companies will be barred from analyzing a total body of rulings associated with a judge's name. They will not be able to aggregate data on verdicts and create a record about a specific judge.
The law also could affect corporate legal departments and law firms that rely on third-party data analytics for case assessment and appellate work.
This article was first published on Law.com's International site. LTN will have follow ups as more is known.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 2While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 3The Definition of Special Employment
- 4People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 5Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250