British Horseracing Board Ltd v. William Hill Organization Ltd (CJEU, 2004)

“Databases are protected only when real investment is made in obtaining the data — not merely creating it.”

Short Description

This case clarified the scope of database rights in the EU, particularly whether investment in the creation of data qualifies for protection under the Database Directive. The British Horseracing Board (BHB) claimed that William Hill infringed its sui generis database right by using race information extracted from BHB’s database. The Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that database protection applies only when substantial investment is made in seeking, collecting, and verifying existing data — not merely generating new data for commercial activities. The ruling significantly limited the scope of database rights.

Facts

The BHB maintained a comprehensive database containing information about British horse races, including race times, locations, horses, and jockeys. William Hill, a major betting company, displayed some of this information on its website to facilitate online betting services. BHB argued that extensive resources were spent creating the racing data itself, such as organising races, registering horses, and verifying participants. BHB claimed that William Hill’s use amounted to unlawful extraction and reutilisation. The dispute raised an important question: does investment in the creation of data qualify for database protection?

Findings / Reasoning

The CJEU held that protection under the Database Directive applies only when substantial investment is directed towards obtaining, verifying, or presenting existing data, not the creation of the data in the first place. Because most of BHB’s investment related to race organisation — the creation of data — it did not qualify as “database investment.” William Hill merely used limited data for its betting services, which the Court found insufficient to amount to extraction of a substantial part. The Court’s reasoning aimed to prevent monopolies over factual information generated by a business’s normal operations.

Suggestions / Observations

This decision reshaped how data-driven industries interpret database rights. Businesses compiling factual datasets must understand that investment in creating events or generating data cannot be claimed as a protected database investment. Companies relying on external databases must, however, remain cautious when reusing data to ensure they do not extract substantial parts or undermine the value of the original database. The judgment emphasises transparency, competition, and balanced access to factual information, encouraging data producers to rely on contractual protections when appropriate.

Judgment & Date

The CJEU held that BHB’s investment related to the creation of data and therefore did not qualify for database protection. William Hill did not infringe the sui generis database right.

Judgment Date : 9 November 2004