Directory · 14 entries

Rulings on Wayback Machine and web archive captures: directory

This directory lists decisions on archived web captures as evidence, mostly Wayback Machine captures. US appeals courts ask for authentication, often by an Internet Archive witness ², and the Fifth Circuit refused judicial notice in 2022 ¹. The EU General Court accepted an uncertified capture in 2026 ³. Each row comes from the decision itself or from an official digest that summarises it. Blank cells mean the source read did not state the fact.

Last checked 6 November 2026

14 / 14

US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, No. 20-30568
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2022 ¹
What it held about web captures
The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of auction terms on an archived webpage. A private internet archive falls short of a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned ¹
Source
Opinion of 20 January 2022 ¹
US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: United States v. Gasperini, No. 17-2479
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2018 ²
What it held about web captures
No abuse of discretion in admitting Wayback screenshots. The Internet Archive's office manager explained how the Archive works and said the screenshots were accurate copies of its records ²
Source
Opinion of 2 July 2018 ²
US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: United States v. Bansal
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2011 ¹
What it held about web captures
Archived pages were relied on where a witness with personal knowledge testified about how the Wayback Machine works and how reliable its contents are ²
Source
As described in Gasperini and Weinhoffer ^1,2
US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: Specht v. Google
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2014 ¹
What it held about web captures
Cited by the Fifth Circuit among decisions relying on archived pages authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of the archive ¹
Source
As described in Weinhoffer ¹
US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: Novak v. Tucows (summary order)
Jurisdiction
United States
What it held about web captures
Distinguished in Gasperini as a nonprecedential order where the party offering the pages gave no testimony about their provenance ²
Source
As described in Gasperini ²
US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Juniper Networks v. Shipley
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2010 ¹
What it held about web captures
A brief order denied a motion to take judicial notice of Wayback content. The Fifth Circuit said it did not hold that judicial notice of archived information was appropriate ¹
Source
As described in Weinhoffer ¹
US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions
Jurisdiction
United States
Year
2021 ¹
What it held about web captures
Judicial notice of the Wayback Machine could establish that an otherwise authenticated exhibit was publicly accessible on its archive date ¹
Source
As described in Weinhoffer ¹
EU General Court, Ninth Chamber: Case T-580/25
Jurisdiction
European Union
Year
2026 ³
What it held about web captures
A Wayback screenshot may corroborate a website screenshot. An abstract possibility of manipulation is not enough, and a failure to certify evidence does not oblige the court to reject it ³
Source
Judgment of 29 April 2026, paras 31 to 36 ³
Federal Court of Australia: Dyno Nobel Inc v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd (No 2), (2019) FCA 1552
Jurisdiction
Australia
Year
2019 ⁴
What it held about web captures
Page content was hearsay but Internet Archive dates were not. Captures were not business records under s 69. Hearsay rule dispensed with under s 190(3), use limited to what pages showed on dates ⁴
Source
Reasons of 23 September 2019 ⁴
EPO Board of Appeal: T 286/10
Jurisdiction
European Patent Organisation
What it held about web captures
Internet publications raise special problems as changes may not be traceable, but they do not call for a different standard of proof. Balance of probabilities applies ⁵
Source
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3.2.3 ⁵
EPO Board of Appeal: T 2339/09
Jurisdiction
European Patent Organisation
What it held about web captures
A catalogue found in archive.org with an online date of 22 May 2006, before the 17 November 2006 filing date, formed part of the prior art. The applicant bore the burden of proving otherwise ⁵
Source
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3.2.3 ⁵
EPO Board of Appeal: T 523/13
Jurisdiction
European Patent Organisation
What it held about web captures
A Wayback Machine date stamp was established with a sufficient degree of certainty, absent proof otherwise. An unsupported claim that the archive URL was dynamic was rejected ⁵
Source
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3.2.3 ⁵
EPO Board of Appeal: T 2227/11
Jurisdiction
European Patent Organisation
What it held about web captures
Balance of probabilities applies to internet citations. Once the EPO meets it, the other party must prove otherwise ⁵
Source
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3.2.3 ⁵
EPO Board of Appeal: T 1134/06
Jurisdiction
European Patent Organisation
What it held about web captures
Applied a beyond reasonable doubt standard to internet disclosures. The EPO's case law digest says this view has been refuted ⁵
Source
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3.2.3 ⁵

Notes

EPO examination guidelines say the Internet Archive's incompleteness does not detract from the credibility of the data it does archive ⁶.
Rows marked as described in another decision come from that later decision's account, not from the earlier opinion itself ^1,2.

Rules and charges change. Check the official source linked on this page before you pay or travel. Spotted an error? Email hello@whatitsaidthen.com.

US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, No. 20-30568

US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: United States v. Gasperini, No. 17-2479

US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: United States v. Bansal

US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: Specht v. Google

US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: Novak v. Tucows (summary order)

US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Juniper Networks v. Shipley

US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions

EU General Court, Ninth Chamber: Case T-580/25

Federal Court of Australia: Dyno Nobel Inc v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd (No 2), (2019) FCA 1552

EPO Board of Appeal: T 286/10

EPO Board of Appeal: T 2339/09

EPO Board of Appeal: T 523/13

EPO Board of Appeal: T 2227/11

EPO Board of Appeal: T 1134/06

Notes

Sources