Answer · confidence: thin
How did EU courts explain "expeditiously" for websites that host posts, before 2022?
Research question: How have EU courts and national regulators interpreted "expeditiously" under the hosting exemption in the 2000 directive, and do those interpretations appear in published judgments or guidance that predate the 2022 Digital Services Act?
The records show that the directive does not define 'expeditiously,' so the facts do not reveal how EU courts or national regulators have interpreted that term itself 2. What the records do show is the CJEU's L'Oréal judgment on awareness, which held that a provider can lose the exemption if it knew facts a diligent economic operator would have used to identify the illegality and did not act 1. The Court also said awareness can arise from the provider's own investigation or from notification, although notification does not automatically remove the exemption 5. Pre-DSA national deadlines existed in Germany's NetzDG and Austria's KoPl-G, but the records do not connect these to an interpretation of 'expeditiously' under Article 14 9. The newest fact is a 2025 paper, so the evidence is roughly a year old as of October 2026 8.
Checked 2026-10-21. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this questionSources
[1] documented
The Court held that a hosting provider can lose the Article 14 exemption if it was aware of facts from which a diligent economic operator would have identified the illegality and then failed to act.
"it is sufficient, in order for the provider of an information society service to be denied entitlement to the exemption from liability provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31, for it to have been aware of facts or circumstances on the basis of which a diligent economic operator should have identified the illegality in question and acted in accordance with Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2000"CJEU - Judgment C-324/09 L'Oréal 12 Jul 2011 - IPcuria.eu
[2] supported
Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2000/31 conditions the hosting exemption on the provider acting expeditiously to remove or disable access once it obtains knowledge or awareness of illegal activity, but the document does not define 'expeditiously'.
"(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.”"L'Oréal SA v. eBay International AG - Global Freedom of Expression
[3] documented
The Court said the awareness required by Article 14(1)(a) covers any situation in which the provider becomes aware of illegal facts or circumstances in one way or another, so that the rule is not made redundant.
"they must be interpreted as covering every situation in which the provider concerned becomes aware, in one way or another, of such facts or circumstances."CJEU - Judgment C-324/09 L'Oréal 12 Jul 2011 - IPcuria.eu
[4] supported
The Court held that the hosting exemption applies only where the service merely acts as an intermediary, not where it plays an active role giving it knowledge of or control over the data entered by recipients.
"The Court ruled that such exemption from liability only applies when the information society service merely acts as an intermediary and not when it “plays an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, those data [entered by recipients].”"L'Oréal SA v. eBay International AG - Global Freedom of Expression
[5] supported
The Court stated that awareness can arise from the provider's own investigation or from being notified of illegal activity or information, although a notification does not automatically remove the exemption.
"The situations thus covered include, in particular, that in which the operator of an online marketplace uncovers, as the result of an investigation undertaken on its own initiative, an illegal activity or illegal information, as well as a situation in which the operator is notified of the existence of such an activity or such information."CJEU - Judgment C-324/09 L'Oréal 12 Jul 2011 - IPcuria.eu
[6] supported
For damages claims, a marketplace that plays no active role can still lose the exemption if it was aware of facts from which a diligent economic operator would have realised the offers were unlawful.
"Additionally, where the operator of the online marketplace does not play an active role in processing data and optimizing the presentation of the offers for sale, it escapes liability for damages “if it was aware of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which a diligent economic operator should have realized that the offers for sale in question were unlawful.”"L'Oréal SA v. eBay International AG - Global Freedom of Expression
[7] supported
A 2011 Grand Chamber judgment of the Court of Justice, L'Oréal v eBay, addressed the liability of an online-marketplace operator under Directive 2000/31/EC (the Directive on electronic commerce).
"Liability of the online-marketplace operator - Directive 2000/31/EC (‘Directive on electronic commerce’)"EUR-Lex - 62009CJ0324 - EN - EUR-Lex
[8] supported
The CJEU has interpreted the neutral-role criterion of the hosting exemption under Article 14 of the e-Commerce Directive extensively in its case law, before the DSA.
"This criterion – in the context of article 14 ECD – has been interpreted extensively in the case law of the CJEU, which has clarified how a hosting provider may interact with information while maintaining a neutral role."To Host or Not to Host: Rethinking Intermediary Liability Exemption in the DSA (2025)
[9] supported
The paper notes that tight illegal-content removal deadlines were imposed under Germany's NetzDG and Austria's KoPl-G before the DSA.
"as imposed under NetzDG in Germany and KoPl-G in Austria prior to the DSA."Audit of takedown delays across social media reveals failure to reduce exposure to illegal content
[10] supported
In Google France, the CJEU held that remuneration for hosting services does not preclude a passive role.
"For example, the CJEU established in Google France that remuneration for hosting services does not preclude a passive role."To Host or Not to Host: Rethinking Intermediary Liability Exemption in the DSA (2025)