Feeds

Google not liable for defamatory search snippets

High Court heads off flood of cases from world + dog

High performance access to file storage

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.

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders
Veep testifies for Samsung during Apple patent trial
MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling
Bitcoin baron says he needs another lawyer for FinCEN chat
Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
And just when Brit banking org needs £400m to stay afloat
One year on: diplomatic fail as Chinese APT gangs get back to work
Mandiant says past 12 months shows Beijing won't call off its hackers
EFF: Feds plan to put 52 MILLION FACES into recognition database
System would identify faces as part of biometrics collection
Big Content goes after Kim Dotcom
Six studios sling sueballs at dead download destination
Ex-Tony Blair adviser is new top boss at UK spy-hive GCHQ
Robert Hannigan to replace Sir Iain Lobban in the autumn
Alphadex fires back at British Gas with overcharging allegation
Brit colo outfit says it paid for 347KVA, has been charged for 1940KVA
Jack the RIPA: Blighty cops ignore law, retain innocents' comms data
Prime minister: Nothing to see here, go about your business
Don't let no-hire pact suit witnesses call Steve Jobs a bullyboy, plead Apple and Google
'Irrelevant' character evidence should be excluded – lawyers
prev story

Whitepapers

Securing web applications made simple and scalable
In this whitepaper learn how automated security testing can provide a simple and scalable way to protect your web applications.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
HP ArcSight ESM solution helps Finansbank
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.