ISP-Liability & Media Law
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.04.10
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
In the Netherlands, the Council of Ministers decided to legally define the right of journalists to protect their sources.
Introduction
Although Dutch case law already recognized the right of journalists to protect their sources, the Dutch Council of Ministers decided to legally define this right. With this legal definition, the Council of Ministers aims at more clarity and certainty for journalists.
Who is concerned?
Only those persons that are professionally active in journalistic activities will benefit from the right to protect their sources. As such, the enactment would be more strict than the protection granted by case law. Before, the criterion to be professionally active was of no importance. It was sufficient to address yourself to a large audience and to act in the public interest to be granted the right to protect your sources.
Scope of the protection
The journalist will only obtain the right to protect his source if the data destined for disclosure to the public is communicated to the journalist in pursuance of his profession. Moreover, the right for the journalist to protect his source can also be limited for reasons of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, etc.
Entry into force
The Council of Ministers agreed to have the State Council advice on the proposed act before introducing it with the Parliament for voting. Thus, there are still some steps to be taken before the right to protect sources is legally defined. Until that moment, it will be up to case law to judge whether or not journalists may protect their sources.
References: Press release from the Dutch government of 4 December 2009
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
