A Comparative Study of the Criminal Liability of Service-Sharing Platforms for Crimes Committed by Users

Abstract

The expansion of service-sharing platforms, such as Snapp, Divar, and Aparat, has facilitated the emergence of novel forms of criminality whose attribution to digital intermediaries poses significant challenges from the perspective of traditional criminal law. This study aims to explain the scope, foundations, and conditions of platforms’ criminal liability for crimes committed by users under the Iranian legal system and to compare them with the corresponding framework in the legal system of England. This qualitative study employed a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach. Data were collected through library-based research, including Iranian statutory laws—the Computer Crimes Act of 2009 and the Electronic Commerce Act of 2003—English legislation, including the Communications Act 2003, the Digital Economy Act 2017, and the Online Safety Act 2023, as well as judicial decisions, scholarly articles, and reputable theses published during the past ten years. The data were analyzed using deductive reasoning and qualitative content analysis. The findings indicated that, despite the recognition of the criminal liability of legal persons under the Iranian Islamic Penal Code of 2013, Iranian law lacks a coherent framework governing the criminal liability of platforms. Consequently, courts are compelled to rely on general principles, such as the rule of causation and the theory of negligent supervision. By contrast, English law, through the enactment of the Online Safety Act 2023, has established a comprehensive system based on a “duty of care,” under which platforms are required to conduct regular risk assessments, prevent the dissemination of illegal content, and cooperate with the regulatory authority. Breach of these obligations may result in fines of up to £18 million or 10% of the platform’s worldwide revenue. This study concludes that the Iranian legal system could draw upon the English model while preserving its Islamic jurisprudential foundations, including the rule of causation and the principle of no harm, to establish a “tiered liability” system based on the number of users and the level of risk. It is recommended that the Computer Crimes Act be amended to expressly establish preventive obligations for platforms.