Which 2023–2025 cases illustrate conflicts between jurisdictional limits and cross-border enforcement of defamation judgments?

1. “The Internet Makes Borders Porous — Academics Propose New Rules”

A November 2023 Journal of Private International Law article by Svantesson and Symeonides argues that internet publication has increased frequency and complexity of cross‑border defamation disputes and proposes instruments to reduce unilateral “arms races” of enforcement; that article explicitly ties the problem to existing recognition rules and U.S. resistance grounded in the First Amendment and the SPEECH Act framework ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. “U.S. Legal Resistance: SPEECH Act and First Amendment Limits”

U.S. law is a recurring source of cross‑border tension: commentators explain that the SPEECH Act bars enforcement in U.S. courts of foreign defamation judgments that do not meet U.S. constitutional speech protections (and the Act is a central reason plaintiffs sometimes go elsewhere), a dynamic highlighted in academic and practice literature exploring why some plaintiffs avoid U.S. forums ^{[6] [2] [4]}.

3. “EU Frameworks vs. National Variations — Brussels I and Rome II Frictions”

Within the EU the Brussels I regime and national choice‑of‑law rules aim to streamline recognition and enforcement, but commentators note persistent forum‑shopping and divergence in outcomes because member states still apply different rules and cultural balances between reputation and free expression — a structural source of conflict when an EU judgment is sought to be enforced in another member state ^{[3] [7] [8]}.

4. “Recent Litigation Illustrations: Cases and Compilations, 2023–2024”

Surveys of recent cases (e.g., Lexology’s damages roundup and Inforrm’s top‑case lists) document concrete disputes that raise cross‑border questions: Australian federal and state actions involving online publications, and cross‑jurisdictional suits that probe publishing location, harm and applicable law — these case collections show how jurisdictional doctrine (where injury occurs, where defendant is domiciled) drives conflict over whether judgments can or should be enforced abroad ^{[9] [10]}.

5. “Practical Enforcement Problems: Statutes of Limitations and Forum Shopping”

Practitioners emphasize practical blocking points to cross‑border enforcement: short statutes of limitation in some jurisdictions (often one to three years) can bar domestic suits or recognition of foreign judgments; likewise, differing approaches to publication (where something is “published” online) and the “effects” test for personal jurisdiction cause defendants and platforms to contest enforcement ^{[11] [2] [12]}.

6. “Platforms, Takedown Orders, and Non‑court Pressures”

Reports and later commentary (through 2025) show platform disputes where foreign orders or laws prompt takedown requests or litigation against platforms; scholars warn that absent coordinated rules, states and claimants will seek to leverage either national takedown regimes or cross‑border judgments to control speech, provoking counter‑claims and litigation in other venues ^{[13] [1]}.

7. “Competing Perspectives — Free Speech vs. Reputation Protection”

Sources are split on remedies: some scholars and EU proposals favor harmonised choice‑of‑law or direction‑of‑publication tests to reduce forum‑shopping and protect press freedom; others (and U.S. statutes and commentators) prioritize First Amendment‑style protections, seeing foreign libel judgments as potential censorship that U.S. courts should not enforce ^{[14] [6] [4]}.

8. “What’s Missing in Current Reporting”

Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, universally accepted list of 2023–2025 individual case names that definitively illustrate enforcement failures across every major jurisdiction; reporting instead offers academic proposals, compilations of notable national cases, and discussion of enforcement doctrines without a single global catalogue (not found in current reporting).

9. “Practical Takeaway for Lawyers and Claimants”

Practitioners should expect disputes over where a publication was “published,” whether the foreign court complied with due process and comparable free‑speech protections, and whether domestic statutes (SPEECH Act in the U.S.; Brussels I in the EU) permit recognition — the literature stresses multilateral coordination or legislative reform to reduce unpredictable forum outcomes ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

Limitations: this overview relies on academic articles, practice summaries and multi‑case compilations found in the provided sources; those sources highlight doctrinal tensions and examples but do not provide a single exhaustive docket of 2023–2025 enforcement‑failure cases ^{[1] [10]}.