In any case, on the matter Agoda It was further held that before examining the choice of law clause set forth in the standard contract, it is necessary to examine what law applies in accordance with the ordinary rules of conflict of law. Since in the same matter (as in our case) a claim on tort grounds was discussed, to which the law that is supposed to apply according to the rules of conflict of law is the law of "place of commission of the tort", the question was examined in the framework of the judgment as to under what circumstances it will be determined, in relation to the presentation of marketing information on the Internet by a dealer, that the "place of the commission of the tort" is the place where the information published by the dealer by the consumers-users was received. The parties in our case do not dispute that the precedent established in the matter Agoda It applies in our case, even though it is not a matter of deception or misrepresentation, but rather of another tort that was allegedly committed on the Internet.
In the Aguda case, after reviewing the purposes of the conflict of law rules and the various approaches, the Supreme Court ruled that according to the conflict of law rules applicable in Israel, Israeli law will apply to the presentation of information to a customer in the online space, if one of two alternatives exists: (a) the browsing of the website is on an "Israeli website" (including the configuration of the Israeli website); or (b) in relation to an international corporation that conducts activity in Israel, the browsing of the website is from an Israeli IP (paragraph 54 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Grosskopf). With regard to the question of which corporation conducts activity in Israel, it was determined (in continuation of the Troim Miller case) that this definition has an objective component, which concerns the scope of economic activity carried out through the Website vis-à-vis Israeli customers; and a subjective component, which concerns the scope of the efforts invested by the site in order to penetrate the Israeli market. It was further held that "the very operation of an Israeli website (including the configuration of an Israeli website) creates, at the very least, a contradictory presumption regarding activity in Israel on the part of a foreign corporation, when the burden must be on the foreign corporation to convince that despite the existence of the Israeli website, it should not be regarded as having activity in Israel, given an examination of the entirety of the marketing efforts it takes in relation to the Israeli market. and the scope of its business activity vis-à-vis Israeli customers" (paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Grosskopf). It should be noted that in the Aguda case, the Honorable Justice Ronen expressed a slightly different approach, according to which the emphasis should be on the subjective component. However, it appears that the position of the Honorable Justice Grosskopf with regard to the tests for deciding the question of the "place of commission of the tort" was accepted by the majority (see paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Willner).
- The trial courts applied the rule Agoda and the tests set in this framework in relation to a number of matters in relation to global corporations operating in Israel, including global technology companies and social networks. Recently, the opinion was expressed in case law that when it comes to a social network, the tests and balances regarding the definition of "activity in Israel" should be slightly different. It was argued that in view of the characteristics of the social network, which does not "sell" or "transport" a product or service so that geographical locations have limited significance; And taking into account that in light of technological innovations and the development of artificial intelligence tools, the interface language is also not a critical matter - the tests that have been set in the matter Agoda, at least in part, are less relevant. Therefore, it was held, when it comes to a social network, greater emphasis should be placed on the objective test, and in particular the number of users of the particular social network in Israel, as an indication of the application of Israeli law (see the judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (the Honorable Judge Hess) in an appeal against a registrar's decision (Cell) 68900-06-25 Snap Inc v. Ziva Sokol [Nevo] (September 16, 2025) hereinafter: Snapchat). In the matter Snapchat The court ruled that taking into account the fact that the income and profit of the social network is not from its users but from advertising made within its framework, which is directed and tailored according to the characteristics of the user, when it comes to a social network that has hundreds of thousands of users in Israel, even if it is a limited scope of activity compared to the entire world, it is still a huge scope that justifies the application of Israeli law.
The judgment given in the case of Snapchat (and in this context it should be noted that this is a judgment of the District Court, which is not yet conclusive), is based on the same logic on which some of the tests determined in the Aguda case are based, namely that since a global social network operating in Israel derives quite a bit of profits from adapting the content to the characteristics of the specific users (when these characteristics often include the geographical location as well), it must be prepared for the law of the place to apply to it. Therefore, there is justification for applying it to it.