Feeds

Google not liable for defamatory search snippets

High Court heads off flood of cases from world + dog

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

He went on to distinguish the facts of Godfrey.

"A search engine, however, is a different kind of internet intermediary," he wrote. "It is not possible to draw a complete analogy with a website host. One cannot merely press a button to ensure that the offending words will never reappear on a Google search snippet: there is no control over the search terms typed in by future users. If the words are thrown up in response to a future search, it would by no means follow that [Google Inc.] has authorised or acquiesced in that process."

He found, though, that Google could take some steps to block content.

"There is a degree of international recognition that the operators of search engines should put in place [a take-down policy] (which could obviously either be on a voluntary basis or put upon a statutory footing) to take account of legitimate complaints about legally objectionable material," he wrote.

"It is by no means easy to arrive at an overall conclusion that is satisfactory from all points of view," he said. "In particular, the material may be objectionable under the domestic law of one jurisdiction while being regarded as legitimate in others."

He noted that, in this case, Google had taken steps to ensure that certain identified URLs were blocked. "I am told that [Google Inc.] needs to have specific URLs identified and is not in a position to put in place a more effective block on the specific words complained of without, at the same time, blocking a huge amount of other material which might contain some of the individual words comprising the offending snippet," wrote Mr Justice Eady.

"It may well be that [Google Inc.'s] 'notice and take down' procedure has not operated as rapidly as [MIS] would wish, but it does not follow as a matter of law that between notification and 'take down' [Google] becomes or remains liable as a publisher of the offending material," he wrote. "While efforts are being made to achieve a 'take down' in relation to a particular URL, it is hardly possible to fix [Google Inc.] with liability on the basis of authorisation, approval or acquiescence."

MIS sought an injunction to prevent the display in search results of anything that suggests it is involved in a scam, without the need to provide Google with the location of the materials in question.

Google said that it had blocked access from google.co.uk to the specific URLs identified by MIS. "This would not stop somebody, however, from searching on www.google.com," wrote Mr Justice Eady. "Nor would it prevent a third party who is responsible for the content of the site in question from moving it to a different web page, while giving it a different URL and avoiding the block."

"Thus, submits [Google's barrister Antony White QC], it is practically impossible, and certainly disproportionate, to expect [Google Inc.] to embark on a wild goose chase in order to determine where the words complained of, or some of them, might from time to time 'pop up' on the Web."

Mr Justice Eady agreed with Google's arguments. If Designtechnica blocked or removed the offending content on its site, which it could, that content would not be picked up by search engines, he noted. If MIS is to have an effective remedy, he said, it must lie against Designtechnica. An injunction against Google Inc. "would be a hopelessly inadequate substitute," he said. He added that it would be unrealistic to hold Google responsible for publication of the snippet "whether on the basis of authorship or acquiescence."

Mr Justice Eady also considered the Defamation Act, the E-commerce Regulations and the common law defence of innocent dissemination. But he reached his main conclusion on the basis of common law defamation and found that Google was not a publisher under that law.

"I do not consider that on the evidence before me [Google Inc.] can be regarded as a publisher of the words complained of, whether before or after notification," he wrote. The Master's order was set aside.

Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said the ruling is good news for search engines but leaves some questions unanswered.

"Justice Eady saw it as significant that Google had blocked the URLs supplied by MIS," said Robertson. "He talks of international recognition that search engines should have such systems in place. But he only hints that a search engine can become liable if it has no such take-down procedure – he doesn't put that beyond doubt, which leaves some uncertainty. It's also a bit frustrating that we're given no guidance on how fast or effective such take-down systems should be."

"Nor did Justice Eady analyse in any depth the fact that the URLs were blocked only on Google.co.uk, not Google.com," he said. "Since the US site is also used by many people in the UK, it's surprising that he didn't explore the arguments for and against blocking the URLs at Google.com too."

"Nonetheless, this is the first judicial analysis of search engine liability for defamation under UK law and it's undoubtedly a brilliant result for Google and other search engines," said Robertson.

A Google spokesperson told OUT-LAW: "We are pleased with this result, which reinforces the principle that search engines aren't responsible for content that is published on third party websites."

"Justice Eady made clear if someone feels they have been defamed by material on a website then they should address their complaint to the person who actually wrote and published the material, and not a search engine, which simply provides a searchable index of content on the Internet," he said.

Copyright © 2009, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
We know what the Doctor does, stop going on about it already
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
'Cowardly, venomous trolls' threatened with TWO-YEAR sentences for menacing posts
UK government: 'Taking a stand against a baying cyber-mob'
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Arab States make play for greater government control of the internet
Nerds told to get lost in last-minute power grab bid at UN meeting
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Zippy one-liners, broken promises: Doctor Who on the Orient Express
Series finally hits stride, but Clara's U-turn is baffling
Don't bother telling people if you lose their data, say Euro bods
You read that right – with the proviso that it's encrypted
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why cloud backup?
Combining the latest advancements in disk-based backup with secure, integrated, cloud technologies offer organizations fast and assured recovery of their critical enterprise data.
Win a year’s supply of chocolate
There is no techie angle to this competition so we're not going to pretend there is, but everyone loves chocolate so who cares.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.