Nordic Journal of Legal Studies

Editorial Note

Essi Holden — 2024-09-16

Editorial Note to Volume 3, Issue 1 (2025) of the Nordic Journal of Legal Studies

Chefredaktørens forfatterkald

Touko Johannes Sinisalo — 2024-09-16

Special Call for Papers for Volume 4, Issue 1 (2025) of the Nordic Journal of Legal Studies

Perspectives to Mobile Cramming: Methods, Liability, and Potential Anti-Cramming Measures

Antti Suomalainen — 2024-09-16

During the last few decades, the illegal practice of inserting unauthorized charges in mobile bills, “mobile cramming”, has emerged worldwide in the field of direct carrier billing. In the United States, civil and criminal aspects regarding mobile cramming have been addressed and prominently displayed in governmental investigations and notable legal cases. In Finland, the discussion on mobile cramming has focused solely on questions about the contractual liability of the parties involved. This article aims to bring clarity to the phenomenon by describing the potential cramming and anti-cramming methods, the chain of liability and the parties involved. The article also describes what courses of action have been taken by governmental officials when pursuing mobile cramming cases in Finland and the U.S. Due to the lack of case law in Finland, the issue is addressed from the perspective of the Competition and Consumer Authority. In conclusion, it is summarized that regardless of the preventive regulatory measures, the practice of mobile cramming still exists, and the crammers are finding new avenues for their operations through regulatory loopholes. Contractual liability for unauthorized charges has been acknowledged to be divided among the parties involved, but this alone is not sufficient to prevent mobile cramming in Finland. More attention needs to be paid to effective preventive measures.

Demokraattisen oikeusvaltion ja Metan itsesääntelyn yhteensopivuudesta: Oversight Board sananvapauden valvojana

Matias Koivulehto — 2024-09-16

The article examines the role of Meta in relation to the principles of the democratic Rechtsstaat. The perspective focuses on the importance of the human right to freedom of expression in a global network society, where Internet intermediaries, through their self-regulation and content moderation, have a crucial impact on the realisation of freedom of expression and, by extension, on democratic processes. Because of their influence, their self-regulatory systems can be seen as independent systems of norms, governed by fundamentally different principles from those of European nation-states committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law – especially in the context of the European Union. This is of particular importance for public debate and the free expression of opinions, which are fundamental values in democratic societies. Social media both enables and, in some cases, limits the exercise of fundamental and human rights. They also share, or to some extent have even taken over, the institutional role of traditional media in society. The article takes a legal-theoretical approach to the subject matter, as it addresses the role of public debate in the digital environment as part of the legitimacy of the legal order itself. In this respect, the article analyses the relationship between Facebook and the public sphere, which is essential for democracy, and the role of the state in promoting freedom of expression in the online environment. The theoretical framework is based on Kaarlo Tuori's theory of the levels of law and the concept of democratic Rechtsstaat. Against this framework, Facebook/Meta is examined in a European context, which includes both the European Union and Council of Europe law. Most focus is put on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Through this framework, the role and position of the Oversight Board at the interface of human rights implementation and Meta's self-regulation will also be examined. Given the emphasis in the ECtHR's jurisprudence on the positive obligations imposed on the state, the article concludes that a more effective horizontal impact of fundamental and human rights is needed. This is supported by the conclusion that Facebook may not be considered as a well-suited public sphere for democracy.

Yrityssalaisuuden ja ammattitaidon rajanveto

Lauri Leskelä — 2024-09-16

Chapter 30, Section 5 of the Finnish Criminal Code, prohibits, inter alia, an employee from unlawfully using or disclosing a trade secret to another person during the course of employment. The prohibition remains also in force for two years after the employment has ended. However, the use of one's professional skill is excluded from the prohibition. This article addresses the ambiguous distinction between a skill and a trade secret. Following a legislative change concerning non-compete agreements, the significance of the protection of trade secrets under criminal law has increased and the ambiguity identified in case law has become even more important to resolve. The Supreme Court of Finland has not issued a precedent concerning the matter. The article analyses Court of Appeal rulings with legal dogmatics in order to reduce the ambiguity surrounding the topic. Forty-three rulings from various Courts of Appeal have been reviewed as groundwork for the article. In addition, the aim is to use legal comparison to examine foreign jurisprudence surrounding the topic.

The article critically examines a so-called primary rule of interpretation, according to which information exported in stored form is in principle a trade secret. This premise is outdated and problematic and should not be used as the core premise of the evaluation. Instead, the evaluation should focus on an objective analysis of the information itself. The primary starting point in drawing the line between a trade secret and skill should be the employee's experience and ability to independently produce the information claimed to be a trade secret. It would also be reasonable to make the confidentiality criterion for trade secrets stricter by requiring employers to place more emphasis on the confidentiality of the information.