案例簡介:雅虎[Yahoo!]訴訟案(中國)

Computer keyboard

For an English-language version of this case profile, please click here.

2007年4月,王小寧及其妻子俞陵依據《外國人侵權索賠法》、《酷刑受害人保護法》和加州法律(向加州美國聯邦法院)對雅虎(Yahoo!)及其 中國子公司提起訴訟。2007年6月,記者師濤及一些不願透露姓名的原告加入了訴訟。王小寧和師濤兩人在中國分別因煽動顛覆國家政權罪和非法向境外提供國家機密罪被判有期徒刑十年。王小寧獲罪是因為通過雅虎以電子郵件的形式散播其撰寫的有關宣揚中國民主改革和多黨民主制的文章。師濤則是因為通過自己的雅虎賬戶向網站論壇發送他對一份中國政府在“六四事件”十五周年前夕對媒體下達的限制報道通知的評論 。

原告方指責雅虎向中國執法部門透露了他們在互聯網上的一舉一動,導致他們遭到監禁。訴訟稱雅虎將用戶身份信息提供給中國當局,在明知會給原告的生理、心理帶來嚴重的痛苦和折磨的情況下,協助並幫助中國當局實施加害行為及其他侵犯人權的行為。原告方在二次修訂狀中稱:王小寧和師濤“因行使他們的言論、集會、結社等自由權利,被中國政府官員打著中國法律的旗號,借(雅虎)之手對其實施並且正在實施迫害行為。這些行為嚴重違反了禁止使用酷刑……禁止采用強制勞動手段等國際社會公認的國際法標准。”

2007年8月27日,雅虎以該案涉及“國家行為”和政治問題,做出判決將有違國際禮讓原則, 因此“不具備可司法性”(即案件涉及不適合在美國法庭裁決的問題)為由向法院提出申請,請求駁回原告方的起訴(這三點的詳細信息請參見這裡)。 2007年10月31日,法庭部分同意了原告方的請求,對案件的初步事實和司法管轄權進行調查後再決定是否同意雅虎提出的駁回起訴的申請。2007年11 月13日,雅虎CEO在國會聽證會上舉證之後,原被告雙方同意私下達成和解, 並且共同向法院申請撤訴。雅虎同意承擔原告方的訴訟費用,並且設立基金,“為那些因在互聯網上表達觀點而坐牢的異見人士提供人道主義援助和法律援助。”和解協議的具體條款保密。

2008年2月下旬,一些中國異見人士向美國加利福尼亞州聯邦法院提起對雅虎的新訴訟,案由與2007年11月達成和解的訴訟類似。

2012年2月1日,雅虎的一名股東和中國的一名維權人士在特拉華州衡平法院對雅虎提起訴訟,尋求雅虎公司人權基金設立和運作的證據。該基金是應依照上文提到的2007年11月達成的訴訟和解協議設立的。原告方稱雅虎選派的基金管理人將基金資產挪作私用。

- "Milberg LLP and Human Rights Activist File Suit Against Yahoo! Questioning Operation of the Yahoo! Human Rights Fund", Xenia Kobylarz, Milberg LLP, 6 Feb 2012 

- "Yahoo sued again by Chinese dissidents", Dan Nystedt, Computerworld, 29 Feb 2008

- “Yahoo Settles With Chinese Families”, Catherine Rampell, Washington Post, 14 Nov 2007

[FR] “Reporters sans frontiers soulagee par l’accord entre Yahoo! et les familles de Shi Tao et Wang Xiaoning”Reporters sans Frontières, 14 nov 2007

“Yahoo apologizes for action on Chinese dissident journalist” AFX News, 4 Nov 2007

- “Yahoo plea over China rights case”, BBC News, 28 Aug 2007

- “Jailed Chinese Reporter Joins Yahoo Suit”, Dikky Sinn, Washington Post, 11 Jun 2007

- “Chinese Political Prisoner Sues in U.S. Court, Saying Yahoo Helped Identify Dissidents”, Miguel Helft, New York Times, 19 Apr 2007

- World Organization for Human Rights (plaintiffs’ counsel): Corporate Accountability (includes links to legal documents filed in US case)

- Human Rights in China: Case Highlight – Shi Tao and Yahoo

- Human Rights in China: Yahoo! Cited in Decision Sentencing Internet Dissident Wang Xiaoning to 10 Years, 27 Apr 2006

- [PDF] Xiaoning v. Yahoo - Second Amended Complaint, 30 Jul 2007

Xiaoning v. Yahoo! Inc, et al. – Defendant Yahoo! Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, 27 Aug 2007

- Justia: Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al [index, with links, of all legal filings in case]

- [PDF] Chinese Judgment Against Shi Tao, 27 Apr 2005 (Chinese language only)

- [PDF] Chinese Judgment Against Wang Xiaoning, 12 Sep 2003 (Chinese language only)

獲取這些結果的RSS提要

以下是所有相關材料

法律訴訟
+ English - 隱藏
18 February 2014

Yahoo! lawsuit (re China)

作者: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

In April 2007 Wang Xiaoning and Wang’s wife, Yu Ling, filed a lawsuit (in US federal court in California) against Yahoo! and its Chinese subsidiariesunder the Alien Tort Claims Act, Torture Victim Protection Act and California state law.  In June 2007 journalist Shi Tao and a number of unnamed plaintiffs joined the lawsuit.  Wang and Shi had each been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in China on respective charges of incitement to subvert state power and of illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities.  Wang was found guilty on the basis of essays advocating democratic reform and multi-party democracy in China that he distributed via email and through Yahoo!  Shi was convicted on the basis of an email he sent from his Yahoo! account to an internet forum which contained his comments on a Chinese Government circular prepared in advance of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising outlining restrictions on the media.  

 

The plaintiffs accused Yahoo! of giving information about their online activities to Chinese law enforcement, which led to their detention.  The lawsuit alleges that by providing user identification information to the Chinese authorities, Yahoo! knowingly and willfully aided and abetted the commission of torture and other human rights abuses that caused the plaintiffs severe physical and mental pain and suffering.  The plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleged that Wang and Shi “have been and are being subjected to grave violations of some of the most universally recognized standards of international law, including prohibitions against torture…and forced labor, for exercising their rights of freedom of speech, association, and assembly, at the hands of [Yahoo!] through Chinese officials acting under color of law in the People’s Republic of China.” 

 

On 27 August 2007, Yahoo! moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that the case presents “nonjusticiable” questions (questions not appropriate for resolution by a US court) because the case involves “acts of state” and political questions, and because ruling on them would breach standards of international comity.  (More information on these three doctrines is available here.)  On 31 October 2007, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for initial and jurisdictional discovery, delaying its decision on Yahoo!’s motion to dismiss until this discovery had been conducted.  On 13 November 2007, following the testimony of Yahoo!’s CEO before Congress, the parties agreed to a private settlement and issued a joint stipulation of dismissal in which Yahoo! agreed to bear the plaintiffs’ legal costs and establish a fund "to provide humanitarian and legal aid to dissidents who have been imprisoned for expressing their views online."  The exact terms of the settlement are confidential. 

In late February 2008 a new lawsuit was filed against Yahoo! by Chinese dissidents in US federal court in California based on allegations similar to those in the lawsuit which was settled in November 2007.

On 1 February 2012 a Yahoo! shareholder and a Chinese activist filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Yahoo! seeking evidence from the company regarding the establishment and operation of the Yahoo! Human Rights Fund.  This Fund was to be established pursuant to the November 2007 settlement of the lawsuit described above.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual selected by Yahoo! to administer the Fund misappropriated Fund assets for his personal use.

- "Milberg LLP and Human Rights Activist File Suit Against Yahoo! Questioning Operation of the Yahoo! Human Rights Fund", Xenia Kobylarz, Milberg LLP, 6 Feb 2012
- "Yahoo sued again by Chinese dissidents", Dan Nystedt, Computerworld, 29 Feb 2008
- “Yahoo Settles With Chinese Families”, Catherine Rampell, Washington Post, 14 Nov 2007

- [FR] “Reporters sans frontiers soulagee par l’accord entre Yahoo! et les familles de Shi Tao et Wang Xiaoning”Reporters sans Frontières, 14 nov 2007

- “Yahoo apologizes for action on Chinese dissident journalist” AFX News, 4 Nov 2007

- “Yahoo plea over China rights case”, BBC News, 28 Aug 2007

- “Jailed Chinese Reporter Joins Yahoo Suit”, Dikky Sinn, Washington Post, 11 Jun 2007

- “Chinese Political Prisoner Sues in U.S. Court, Saying Yahoo Helped Identify Dissidents”, Miguel Helft, New York Times, 19 Apr 2007

 

- World Organization for Human Rights (plaintiffs’ counsel): Corporate Accountability (includes links to legal documents filed in US case)

- Human Rights in China: Case Highlight – Shi Tao and Yahoo

- Human Rights in China: Yahoo! Cited in Decision Sentencing Internet Dissident Wang Xiaoning to 10 Years, 27 Apr 2006

- [PDF] Xiaoning v. Yahoo - Second Amended Complaint, 30 Jul 2007

- Xiaoning v. Yahoo! Inc, et al. – Defendant Yahoo! Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, 27 Aug 2007

- Justia: Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al [index, with links, of all legal filings in case]

- [PDF] Chinese Judgment Against Shi Tao, 27 Apr 2005 (Chinese language only)

- [PDF] Chinese Judgment Against Wang Xiaoning, 12 Sep 2003 (Chinese language only)

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: AAP (Australian Associated Press)

Shi Tao...was released on August 23 after serving nearly nine years of a 10-year sentence for "providing state secrets to overseas organisations"… "Shi Tao's arrest and imprisonment, because of the actions of Yahoo China, signalled a decade ago the challenges to freedom of expression of internet surveillance and privacy that we are now dealing with," [the head of PEN International's Writers in Prison Committee] said…Yahoo later apologised for handing over Shi's emails to Chinese authorities. In 2007, it settled a lawsuit brought on behalf of Shi and another Chinese journalist who was convicted partly through information provided by Yahoo.

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Ian Brown & Douwe Korff, Global Network Initiative

While states are responsible for protecting human rights online under international law, companies responsible for Internet infrastructure, products and services can play an important supporting role. Companies also have a legal and corporate social responsibility to support legitimate law enforcement agency actions to reduce online criminal activity such as fraud child exploitation and terrorism. They sometimes face ethical and moral dilemmas when such actions may facilitate violations of human rights. In this report we suggest practical measures that governments, corporations and other stakeholders can take to protect freedom of expression, privacy, and related rights in globally networked digital technologies. [refers to Amesys (part of Bull), Blue Coat, Vodafone, Google, YouTube [part of Google], Cisco, McAfee [part of Intel], Websense, Verizon, Sandvine, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) (joint venture Nokia and Siemens), Syrian Telecommunications Establishment, Huawei, ZTE. Concerns are raised re ZTE's provision of surveillance equipment to Iranian Govt. For ZTE's response, see http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1012025]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Andrew Jacobs & Penn Bullock, New York Times

As the Chinese government forges ahead on...[an] effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit: Bain Capital,…founded by Mitt Romney. In December, a Bain-run fund...purchased [Uniview Technologies,] the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system...Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet...Such surveillance systems are often used to combat crime and the manufacturer has no control over whether they are used for other purposes. But human rights advocates say in China they are also used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents...Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, [said]...“These companies are busy making a profit and don’t want to face realities, but what they’re doing is wrong..." ...Bain defended its purchase of Uniview, stressing that the Chinese company’s products were advertised as instruments for crime control, not political repression. [also refers to Honeywell, General Electric, IBM, United Technologies, Yahoo!, Cisco Systems, H3C (part of HP, previously joint venture of 3Com & Huawei), National Foreign Trade Council (USA)]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏
21 February 2012

Corporate Accountability Now

作者: Corporate Accountability Now is a joint project of EarthRights International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Human Rights Litigation and International Legal Advocacy Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School

On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that will determine whether corporations can be sued for their complicity in torture, crimes against humanity, and other human rights abuses [Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority]. These cases have profound implications for the future of corporate accountability in the United States. [Site has profiles of the following additional lawsuits: Holocaust settlements; Doe v. Unocal; Wang Xiaoyang v. Yahoo!; Blackwater cases; Apartheid cases; Almog v. Arab Bank; Chiquita cases; Sarei v. Rio Tinto; Abu Ghraib cases; Doe v. Cisco; Doe v. Exxon Mobil; Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Xenia Kobylarz, Milberg LLP, in BusinessWire

Milberg LLP and human rights activist Morton Sklar filed a lawsuit demanding that Yahoo!...provide records regarding its establishment and operation of the Yahoo! Human Rights Fund (the “Fund”)...The Fund was established to settle the claims of Chinese dissidents whose internet user identifications were improperly disclosed by Yahoo! to China’s government. Jing Zhao, a Chinese activist and Yahoo! shareholder...demand...that Yahoo! produce for inspection documents concerning Yahoo!’s potential mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Fund...Yahoo! agreed to establish the Fund to provide humanitarian and legal support to political dissidents who have been imprisoned for expressing their views online, as well as assistance for their families...The complaint seeks production of documents that will allow shareholders to take appropriate action in the event the members of Yahoo!’s Board of Directors did not properly discharge their fiduciary duties.

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Economist

In May and June human-rights lawyers in America filed two suits [under the Alien Tort Claims Act] alleging that executives at Cisco Systems…sold China’s government equipment customised to help track dissenters online…Cisco denies all wrongdoing…American tech firms covet China’s huge market…Microsoft confirmed that its Bing search engine will soon be powering English-language results for local users of Baidu, China’s censored search giant… Campaigners in New York have started a suit against Baidu, saying its censored search results violate their constitutional rights…[However] suits against Cisco or other high-tech players face an uncertain legal path…Some American politicians think clearer legislation would help. One long-mooted bill, the Global Online Freedom Act, would make the government keep a list of internet-restricting states… [also mentions Facebook, Google, Yahoo]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏
1 February 2011

Better Safe than Sorry

作者: Susan Aaronson, Professor & Ian Higham, Research Assistant - Elliott School of Intl. Affairs, George Washington Univ in Policy Innovations

...Building on years of research and multi-stakeholder dialogue, [UN Special Representative on business & human rights John] Ruggie outlined a framework and Guiding Principles to help firms “operationalize” their human rights responsibilities...While some business associations have expressed generic support for Ruggie’s efforts, most firms have said little. BASF, Talisman, and Novo Nordisk are among the few firms that commented on...the Guiding Principles...The Guiding Principles are not perfect, but they will help firms operationalize, monitor, and audit their human rights performance. Therefore, they represent a strategy that firms should test. Most firms have done very little to ensure that they do not undermine the human rights... [also refers to SNCF, Aetna, JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia (now part of Wells Fargo), Nestle, Mars, Whirlpool, Toyota, General Motors, Cisco Systems, Wal-Mart, Freeport-McMoRan, Yahoo!, Unocal (now Chevron), Barclays, BP, Control Risks, Credit Suisse, ExxonMobil, Gap, Hewlett-Packard, Imperial Tobacco, Shell, Cerrejón Coal (joint venture Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Xstrata), Phillips Van Heusen ]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: J.P Bohoslavsky & V. Opgenhaffen, in Harvard Human Rights Journal

This paper examines the main legal aspects of corporate civil responsibility for facilitating serious violations of human rights, focusing specifically on bank activity. It analyzes, in detail, the Argentinean case and the financial support received by the last military dictatorship...[It inspects] a missing element along this spectrum of Argentina’s long search for accountability and justice: the role of foreign financial institutions and the potential to claim that they were complicit in supporting a regime well-known to have been committing mass human rights violations...Finally, the authors suggest that the assistance provided by private financial institutions played a significant enough role...to warrant a closer examination and possible future legal action on the basis of complicity in crimes against humanity...[also refers to Barclays, Chiquita, Isuzu, Nestlé, UBS, Yahoo!, Unocal (part of Chevron)]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: [opinion] John B. Bellinger III, former US State Dept. legal advisor, New York Times

For more than a decade, dozens of multinational corporations have been sued in federal courts in the United States for alleged human rights violations under the...Alien Tort Statute. Now these suits may be over. In August...[the New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals] ruled that corporations may not be held liable for violations of international law...If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, it will remove an effective weapon for human rights groups to force changes in the behavior of multinational corporations...[and] the impact of their activities on local populations and the environment...Even...[without] the threat of lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute, [corporations] should ensure that their international operations...comport with accepted human rights principles. [refers to Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Talisman Energy, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, Pfizer, Caterpillar, Yahoo]

按此查看全文