On July 20, just days after her team qualified for the semi-finals of the 2025 UEFA European Women’s Championship, England’s Jess Carter revealed that she had been the target of online racist abuse throughout the tournament (Harris, 2025). Although English police have previously investigated incidents of racist abuse on social media and have even arrested individuals who have directed such abuse toward athletes (The Guardian, 2021), Carter’s experience underscores the systemic nature of the issue, and highlights the need for States to implement stronger measures to combat it.

​

A Glimpse into Online Racist Abuse in Football

​

Jess Carter’s experience is part of a broader crisis in football. Like Carter, Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka were targeted by racist abuse while they were competing for England at the UEFA European Championships in 2021 (The Guardian, 2021), and this past year, Jamaica and Manchester City player Khadija “Bunny” Shaw suffered online racist abuse after a Women’s Super League match, forcing her to take time away from the pitch due to the mental toll caused by the incident (Smith, 2025). In 2024, the English Premier League reported over 1,500 cases of online racist abuse (Boyd, 2025), reflecting a league-wide issue, while Spain’s La Liga has also faced scrutiny for its persistent issues with online racial abuse in recent seasons. While the aforementioned States’ football associations have been working with “police to ensure those responsible…are brought to justice” (The Guardian, 2021), the repeated nature of the offences and how quickly content can be shared or reposted on social media has made it difficult for them to effectively address the issue.

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd.

​

The precedent set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. offers a blueprint for how EU Member States can combat online racist abuse directed toward athletes like Jess Carter by involving social media platforms, not just those posting on them.

In the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd., an anonymous Facebook user published a post about Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, an Austrian politician, that Glawischnig-Piesczek claimed violated the Austrian Civil Code, which protects people from hate speech. After Facebook failed to remove the post, the case made its way through Austrian courts, before ending up at the CJEU.

 

While there is a provision of the the European Community’s e-Commerce Directive (ECD) that exempts information service providers from liability (Directive 2000/31, Article 14(1)) the CJEU clarified that this exemption only applies to situations where the service provider has no knowledge of any illegal activity or information or act “expeditiously to remove or disable access to” it as soon as they become aware of it (Case C‑18/18, Paragraph 3(46)). In this case, Facebook had been made aware of the post and its criminal nature, but had failed to take any action.

The Court also considered that while Article 15(1) of the ECD prohibits general monitoring of online content, which includes actively seeking facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity (Case C‑18/18, Paragraph 31), Recital 47 allows for monitoring “in a specific case” where content has been declared to be illegal (Case C‑18/18, Paragraph 34). Thus, the Court held that the ECD does not preclude a Member State from ordering hosting providers such as Facebook to remove unlawful content, as well as content that is identical or equivalent to the unlawful content posted by any user. Monitoring for identical content to that which was found to be illegal, would fall within the allowance for monitoring in a “specific case” and thus not violate the general monitoring prohibition under Article 15 of the ECD. Finally, in its decision, the Court also gave EU Member States the authority to determine the geographic scope of any restriction they impose on hosting providers, so long as it is within the framework of the “relevant international law” (Case C‑18/18, Paragraph 53).

Applying Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. to Jess Carter’s Case

The precedent established by Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. makes it easier for authorities in EU Member States to order hosting providers like Facebook, X, and Instagram to remove racist abuse from their platforms. For instance, in Carter’s case, if UK Courts identify even just a few posts on these platforms that violate its hate speech laws and notify hosting providers of their existence, the platforms are not only obligated to remove the posts in question, but they are obligated to identify and remove any posts that are “identical” or “equivalent” to them, regardless of where they were posted from.

 

While it is certainly important for authorities to hold individuals accountable for violations of hate speech laws, it is also important for authorities to use their power to compel hosting providers to remove unlawful content from their platforms when they are not doing so voluntarily. Taking this step ensures that unlawful content is not circulated in such a widespread manner, and reduces the potential harm that this content can cause.

​

References

​

Boyd, R. (2025, January 13). ‘Just the start’: X’s new AI software driving online racist abuse, experts warn. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/13/just-the-start-xs-new-ai-software-driving-
online-racist-abuse-experts-warn

Brogi, E., & Maroni, M. (2019, October 17). Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited: A new layer of neutrality. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom. https://cmpf.eui.eu/eva-glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook-ireland-limited-a-new-layer-of-neutrality/

Case C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. 3 October 2019.

Columbia University. (n.d.). Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited. Global Freedom of Expression. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook-ireland-limited/

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, pp. 1–16.

Guardian News and Media. (2021, November 3). Man jailed for racially abusing Rashford, Sancho and Saka after Euro 2020 final. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/03/football-fan-jailed-for-racially-abusing-rashford-sancho-and-saka-after-final-euro-2020

Harris, R. (2025, July 20). Social media firms have gone backwards in tackling online hate, says Kick it Out chairman. Sky News. https://news.sky.com/story/social-media-firms-have-gone-backwards-in-tackling-online-hate-says-kick-it-out-chairman-13399386
 

Kassam, A. (2024, October 24). Four men arrested over online racist hate campaign against Vinícius Júnior. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/24/four-men-arrested-over-online-racist-hate-campaign-against-vinicius-junior
 

Pepper, C. E. (2019, November 12). Monitoring online content: The impact of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited. Reed Smith. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2019/11/monitoring-online-content-the-impact-of-eva-glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook
 

Smith, E. (2025, February 16). Khadija Shaw: Man City Striker makes Black Power Salute after facing racism. BBC Sport. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c8636w6xy8qo

​​​