The article analyzes and compares the domestic laws of USA, UK, EU and Canada in the context of intermediary liability, suggesting and contrasting three alternate ways of tackling the complexities of speech regulation. 

The report contrasts various models of intermediary liability that exist in countries across the globe and gives suggestions based on best practices.

The article suggests changes to the online intermediary liability regime in the United States to the effect, inter alia, that the notice and takedown model must be adopted to check allegedly defamatory material online, and a statutory cap must be placed on the damages that may be imposed on intermediaries.

The authors discuss how blocking, filtering, and take down of content by intermediaries in co- and self-regulatory frameworks interfere with the human rights standards related to freedom of expression and information. Arguing against self-regulatory regimes, they discuss current approaches towards human rights responsibilities of private actors with specific reference to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. 

The author comments on the contradictory decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Delfi v. Estonia and MTE Index v. Hungary and analyzes potential intermediary liability regimes against the apparent “middle path” adopted by the Court. 

The note highlights key issues pertaining to intermediary liability, ranging from defining the term “intermediary” to ensuring compliance with human rights norms while imposing takedown liabilities on intermediaries. 

After comparing different models of intermediary liability, the article suggests that “the best balance is achieved when governments and social media platforms jointly tackle the challenges of identifying and removing prohibited content in an accountable, legitimate, and sustainable way”.