12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
In view of the aforesaid, the Respondent argued that the analysis of the rules of choice of law supports the application of foreign law, and that in any event the choice of law clause is valid, and therefore, since the application for approval relies exclusively on Israeli law, it does not establish a cause of action.
The Respondent further argued that the Applicants did not prove that Israel is the appropriate forum to decide the proceeding, since most of the connections indicate that Israel is not the natural and proper forum to conduct the proceeding. In the meantime, the respondent emphasized that according to the case law, significant weight was given to the examination of the appropriateness of the forum, and even additional considerations such as the respondent's place of residence and the location of her witnesses are considerations that must be taken into account. The test of reasonable expectations also indicates, according to the Respondent, the foreign forum, since it has not been proven that LinkedIn intended to submit the application for approval of the services it provides specifically to users residing in Israel. Nor did it claim in the application for approval that LinkedIn's alleged practices are unique to Israeli users, and therefore Israeli courts have no public interest in hearing the alleged grounds.
In view of the above, the Respondent argued that Israel is not the proper forum for conducting the proceeding, and therefore the Court must refrain from applying jurisdiction.
- In their response to the heresy, the Applicants argued that the heresy request should be dismissed in limine and alternatively on its merits, while charging the Respondent with costs.
The applicants argued that even according to the LinkedIn use agreement, at the beginning of section 6, it was clarified that the dispute could be clarified in the local court, and therefore even according to the agreement, the court in Israel is authorized to hear the proceeding. At the very least, the applicants argued that the foreign law stipulation is not explicit and clear, and therefore it does not apply according to the law. Alternatively, the Applicants argued that the choice of law clause should be held to be null and void, since it is a discriminatory clause in a uniform contract, and as expressly determined in case law (Civil Appeal Authority 1901/20 Troim Miller in Tax Appeal v. Facebook Ireland Limited [Nevo] (July 26, 2022), hereinafter the Troim Miller case; the Association case).