Private Law Theory

ABSTRACT
Global copyright takedown injunctions against online intermediaries are causing territorial sovereignty conflicts with private international law. A ruling by a court of one country to restrict or remove content on a domestic level can have consequences beyond that country’s borders. This act interferes with judicial comity and limits the freedom of other countries to regulate online content under their own laws. This research takes a doctrinal approach and assesses statutes, treaties and court rulings in Canada, the European Union, the United States, India and North Macedonia to identify the extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction. A recent CJEU decision in Anne Frank Fonds v Anne Frank Stichting demonstrates that territorial copyright boundaries can be maintained even when users could circumvent them by making use of VPN services. Comparative cases such as Google v Equustek and Glawischnig-Piesczek are used to analyse the broader remedial risks of global intermediary orders. Automated enforcement may also be used to strip away content that is legal in another country. This article argues that courts should apply a three part test based on legitimate interest, substantial connection and balance of interests before granting global relief. Additionally, it advocates for a Mutual Geographical Demarcation Protocol and a choice-of-law provision in order to reduce jurisdictional overreach and forum shopping.

Nirjhar, Punam Shahriar, Global Copyright Injunctions Against Online Intermediaries and Territorial Sovereignty Under Private International Law (September 18, 2026).