After a brief introduction (I.), this article illustrates the “red threat" underlying the series of recent landmark EU court cases (II.), which are subsequently integrated in a detailed analysis for each of the affected legal subdomains (III.). Where relevant, the cases are illustrated with the practical examples and positions taken by the online industry, as well as with comparisons to the United States.

The ISO 37500 Guidance on Outsourcing (1st ed.) (the “Outsourcing Standard") was published Nov 1 2014. The Outsourcing Standard purports to provide guidance for organizations contemplating the implementation of an outsourcing strategy. It is structurally based on the phases of an outsourcing “life cycle" model (the “Life Cycle").For outsourcing practitioners, the hope was that the Outsourcing Standard could be a useful standard similar to the ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 Security Management Standards. However, while the Outsourcing Standard provides a useful “soup to nuts" overview of the process of effecting an outsourcing arrangement, the standard is also characterized by a number of flaws which severely diminish the utility of the standard such that it is, in effect, “Outsourcing for Dummies". This article provides briefly the background to the development of the Outsourcing Standard (I.) and outlines the risks of outsourcing which the Outsourcing Standards purports to tackle (II.). Then a detailed overview of the Outsourcing Standard is presented (III.) before a thorough critical analysis is provided IV.) the results of which are presented in the conclusions (V.).

While there is a worldwide debate about Internet Service Providers (ISPs) liability regarding the information they collect and provide to their users, the result of which has been the continued existence of several court actions in numerous jurisdictions against well-known Internet companies such as Google, Facebook or Twitter, just to name a few. On October 2014, the Argentine Supreme Court (“the Supreme Court") had rendered a landmark decision in re “Belén Rodriguez v. Google Inc. et al", establishing that liability of the so-called “search engines" should be analyzed under a standard of fault, therefore, rejecting the application of a standard of strict liability.While this decision was very much anticipated and has been celebrated for bringing some light to the difficulties surrounding ISPs liability, this article analyzes the precise terms of the decision and differing lower court rulings after the Supreme Court decision revealing whether new Supreme Court guidelines or legislative efforts are necessary, or not. After briefly outlining the legal concepts for ISP liability available in Argentina (I.), the article summarizes the Supreme Court decision (II.) and explores in-depth the range of lower court decisions applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines (III.). The resulting rules emerging from the case law after the Supreme Court’s decision are summarized in the conclusions (IV.).