The Volokh Conspiracy
[Eugene Volokh, July 2, 2007 at 2:07pm] Trackbacks
"Google Sued over Defamatory Postings Found on Web Search":

The Independent (UK) reports:

Google ... is being sued by a London businessman in a landmark legal action that could hold the US-based company liable for the publication of inaccurate, malicious or damaging material on the internet.... [T]he search engine directed users to web pages that the businessman claims contained "deeply offensive and commercially damaging" material about his enterprises.

I don't know whether British libel law, which is famously much more pro-plaintiff than American law, would allow such a lawsuit. But if it does, that would spell serious trouble for any search engine that is subject to jurisdiction in Britain (for instance, because it has an office or assets there) -- and thus for users of any such search engine.

FantasiaWHT:
Amazing... could you sue a library under the same pretense? Or a librarian for helping you find a periodical?
7.2.2007 2:11pm
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
Doesn't the loser pay the winner's legal costs in Britain?
7.2.2007 2:37pm
dearieme:
England, chaps, not Britain
7.2.2007 2:51pm
non-native speaker:
British law implementing the EU Directive on eCommerce (especially its Articles 12 to 14) should block that action.
7.2.2007 2:55pm
TomH (mail):
Would it make a difference if it was a paid placement? I would hope not.
7.2.2007 3:24pm
george:
Google does not pick and choose results that appear in its search results, it has a spider that follows an algorithm that indexes web sites. Secondly, google did not create the defamatory postings. Finally, the postings can probably be found on any search engine. Why would you sue google over something like this?
7.2.2007 3:28pm
martinned (mail) (www):
L.S.,

Like many internet-related legal issues, it depends on whether you take the internet based view, or the non-internet perspective. (Example: a piece of child pornography is sent from San Francisco, via a server in Virginia, to Los Angeles. Is there interstate commerce?)
Cf. 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1367, 12 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 75, and most importantly this article by none other than Orin Kerr: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310020
7.2.2007 3:31pm
visitor from Texas (mail) (www):

Mr Retkin, whose internet company is a domain name registrar (a company that allows customers to register domain names on the internet), says he has spent three years trying to persuade Google to permanently remove the libellous allegations from its search results.

...

The reason that has not already happened is that the Defamation Act 1996 offers a defence to an internet product or service provider where it can claim it is unaware of defamatory or potentially defamatory material it is hosting or material arising from a search result. This protection is supported by the Electronic Commerce (EC) Directive, 2002. But the Defamation Act stipulates that once the company has been put on notice about a complaint it must take action to remove the material or block access.



The problem that is underneath this action is that:

1) This guy makes his living from the Internet. I'd hope that he loses his license to act as a registrar over this action.

2) Everytime he points out a link to Google, they delist the material, which is false.

3) The material (accusations about 9/11 related misbehavior) keeps coming back up, which means that it keeps showing up again.

What he wants is for Google to pre-emptively blacklist/block negative information before he points it out to them again.

What they could do is block him as a search term of any kind -- which would have the effect, noted above, of hampering his business somewhat, the more if others block his name as well.

Technically, Google is not on notice, since it blocks stuff as he points it out. He wants them to just, on their own nickle, find and block things without his pointing them out. I suspect that this action will cause him more trouble than the defamation ever did.

Basically, what he wants could easily be adapted to full scale censorship of the internet, which is what he is really asking for, since once he can get what he wants, the engine for such a thing would readily be used to censor other things as well.

On the other hand, the suit is in the "serious bluff" stage.


Jeffery Green Russell, has given formal notice of the defamation action under the court's pro-action protocol


Should be itneresting what happens next.
7.2.2007 3:32pm
L.J.:
If Google had corporate balls, it'd block all IP addresses from the UK, let the people revolt, and wait for the law to be changed.
7.2.2007 3:34pm
TJ McIntyre (mail) (www):
non-native speaker: The E-Commerce Directive protections don't apply to search engines as such. I've posted on this here.
7.2.2007 3:50pm
non-native speaker:
Thank you, TJ McIntyre. I relied on Spanish law implementing the Directive. I have googled a bit and have found out that Spanish law differs from the British equivalente in at least two accounts: first, it protects the placement of hyperlinks to illegal content, and second, it provides a narrow definition of "actual knowledge"—Spanish law requires that a judge has declared that the content is illegal and that such judicial decision has been notified to the service provider, while I find that a mere notification satifies the requirement of "actual knowledge". Quite different, indeed.
7.2.2007 4:08pm
martinned (mail) (www):
L.S.,

As I see it, it all turns on whether Google actually published anything. Under English law (yes: English, not British) intent is not required for defamation; you can defame someone by accident, you can even defame someone without knowing they exist. (There is an amazing case about someone who wrote a purportedly fictional story and a real person sued and won. When I get into the office, I'll post the details if you like.)

I can't remember whether newspaper stores can be sued for defamation, I'd have to look that up, but I assume that Google will end up winning. And yes, under just about every legal system outside the US, the loser pays legal fees. (Or at least a standardised approximation.)
7.3.2007 3:48am

PicoSearch
Help