Freedom of expression was often challenged by new technologies, such as the Internet. In 2013, a preliminary judgement of the European Court of Human Rights concerning freedom of expression and Internet Intermediaries, namely Delfi AS v Estonia, led to dissent in the economic and academic world. This controversial ruling will serve as the main focus of this thesis. While international Internet companies have begun to fear for their business model, human rights organizations have been assuming a dark future for freedom of expression. The author explains why things are never as bad as they seem, though both sides shall keep an eye on the developments in this field. The following elaborations explain the basic definition of an Internet Intermediary, which still causes problems, and shed light upon the different legal approaches in the United States and, especially, in the European Union, but also touches upon legal solutions in other countries. What are common features and what are the differences between the most important legal frameworks in the world? How can “hosting” in the E-Commerce Directive of the EU be interpreted? Case law and academic articles are examined in order to gain an overview of the issues at stake. After elaborating on the most important human right in this context, freedom of expression, and its limitations, the thesis extensively covers the Delfi-case with additional background details, the three-parts-test of freedom of expression according to international human rights regulations, concerns raised by experts and proposed alterations to the preliminary ruling of the ECtHR. How should the European legal framework be modified in order to ensure a better environment for both, users and Internet companies? Is the notice-to-notice-system an appropriate solution for current problems? These questions will be answered in the last chapters, which shall finally also give recommendations and food for thought to the readers.