To start off, the pre-internet Shevill judgment, widely deemed to be fair [1], allows plaintiffs to commence action in the publisher's jurisdiction, where the totality of the damage suffered can be sought [2]. Plaintiffs can also take action in their own jurisdiction, however only damage in that jurisdiction can be sought [2]. I believe this is fair because lesser resourced plaintiffs can still obtain a lower claim in a single jurisdiction, while publisher's distributions globally are not overexposed to legal risks in a single jurisdiction.
The eDate/Martinez decision adds a third possibility, allowing plaintiffs to take action in a jurisdiction where his "centre of interests" lie, with the possibility of claiming the totality of damages suffered [3]. It is also stated in the judgment that publishers are "in a position to know the centres of interests of the [...] subject of that content" [4]. Kuipers argues that the above statement is problematic [5], using the example of an international celebrity to illustrate how someone can possibly have "centre of interests" that are not immediately clear [6]. Such persons can engage in forum shopping for a more favorable jurisdiction [6]. Thus, the decision greatly shifts the balance towards the consumers, makes it easier to take legal action, by increasing the number of possible jurisdictions, and by allowing for totality of damages to be claimed in jurisdictions other that the publisher's.
The Advocate General's supports the stance of allowing action in a jurisdiction with "centre of gravity", but adds an additional condition that the offending information "arouses interest" and is "objectively relevant" in that particular jurisdiction. I believe that his opinion will shift the balance slightly towards the publisher, making it harder to engage in forum shopping, but still being easier that the original Shevill criterion.
I will use an example to illustrate the difference between the court's position and the Advocate General's opinion. The local Edinburgh paper publishes an article about a tourist's drunken disorderly conduct and arrest by the local police. At the time of publication, it was not known that the tourist is actually someone of high social stature in his "centre of interest". Shortly after publication, the connection is made and the individual experiences a loss of reputation in his "centre of interest". In such a scenario, under the court's position, that individual will be able to take action and sue for his loss of reputation in his "centre of interest". However, under the Advocate General's proposed position, he will not have grounds to take action in his "centre of interest" because drunken disorderly conduct of an individual in Edinburgh will hardly arouse any interest and has no relevance to someone living in a different country.
[1] Case C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited [2011], Opinion of AG VILLALÓN, Para. 38
[2] ibid, Para. 37
[3] Case C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited [2011], Para. 48
[4] ibid, Para. 50
[5] Kuipers J-J, 'Joined Cases C-509/09 & 161/10, eDate Advertising v. X and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v. MGN Limited, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011' (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 1211, Pg. 1230
[6] ibid, Pg. 1221