Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

French Plaintiffs Drop Jewish or Not Jewish App Lawsuit

November 28, 2011/2 Comments/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

French Jewish and anti-racism organizations have dropped the proceedings that they initiated in France against Apple.

The French plaintiffs sought an injunction enjoining Apple from selling its application “Jewish or not Jewish” anywhere in the world. Earlier this fall, at the outset of the proceedings, Apple had already stopped making available the App not only in France, but also in Europe. The plaintiffs did not consider it to be enough and had sought a worldwide injunction.

The French press reports that the French plaintiffs have dropped the case after Apple informed them that it would stop selling the App elsewhere in the world.

From a conflict perspective, the outcome of the case is truly remarkable. The allegation that the App violated the law of one (small) market has led one of the biggest corporations in the world to withdraw the product worldwide.

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2011-11-28 02:24:242011-11-28 02:24:24French Plaintiffs Drop Jewish or Not Jewish App Lawsuit
2 replies
  1. E. Lippovitz says:
    November 29, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Although France might be considered a “small market”, its laws are similar from this point of view to those of other civilized (European) countries. It stood to reason that failure to withdraw the App would lead to a series of costly lawsuits in those jurisdictions, not to mention a lot of bad press. A quick cost/benefit analysis shows that this hassle and expense would far outweigh Apple’s limited profits from the App. Thus the decision of “one of the biggest corporations in the world to withdraw the product worldwide” is an obvious commercial one, and neither this decision, nor (to the best of my knowledge) any national hearing leading up to it, mentioned PIL matters.

    So with all due respect to the eminent author of this article and to the need to draw readers to this excellent website (even through sensationalist headlines), I am still searching for the “conflict perspective” (i.e. what this has to do with PIL). The sources of PIL are few and far between and do not traditionally include a company’s decisions to draw general conclusions from a localized reaction…

  2. Gilles Cuniberti says:
    November 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    You seem to have a rather formalistic understanding of the concept of law. Law does not only impact society insofar as it is applied by courts. It influences rational economic actors who want to save litigation costs. It would be naive to consider that this settlement was reached irrespective of the applicable legal background.

    As far as the conflict of laws is concerned, it is enough to look at the remedy the plaintiffs sought: a world wide injunction.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: New Draft Report of European Parliament on Future Choice of Law Rule for Privacy and Personality Rights Link to: New Draft Report of European Parliament on Future Choice of Law Rule for Privacy and Personality Rights New Draft Report of European Parliament on Future Choice of Law Rule for Privacy... Link to: Third Issue of 2011’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Link to: Third Issue of 2011’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé Third Issue of 2011’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top