defamation Archives - Barry Sookman

Google liable for $500,000 in damages for not delisting defamatory information: A.B. v Google

In what has become a series of worldwide struggles against Google by persons whose reputations have been ruined by defamatory posts which Google refuses to de-list from its search engines, a Quebec man was awarded $500,000 in moral damages and a de-listing injunction against Google for breach of his rights under the Quebec Civil Code. The battle which started approximately 16 years ago and which ended after more than 6 years of litigation is reported in the case, A.B. c. Google, 2023 QCCS 1167.…

View Post

View Post

defamation

Search engine liability for defamation: Duffy v Google(2)

Dr Janice Duffy has been pursuing Google for redress for many years in her quest to hold Google accountable for its refusal to proactively de-index defamatory material posted on the notorious site RipoffReport.com. In a recent decision, DUFFY v GOOGLE LLC [2023] SASC 13 (3 February 2023), she finally prevailed in her defamation claim against Google. In ruling for her, an Australian court confirmed that search engines can be liable for defamation when they fail to de-index snippets that are defamatory, or when snippets entice or encourage searchers to access links that are defamatory.…

View Post

defamation

Google’s defamation liability: Google LLC v Defteros

Is a search engine a publisher for defamation purposes when an organic search result returns a hyperlink to materials that are defamatory? According to a divided High Court of Australia in Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, it is not. However, search engines may still be liable for defamation if search results encourage or entice users to click on links or if contextually the results amount to adoption or endorsement of the specific content linked to.

The Google case illustrates the struggle courts have in applying common law defamation principles to modern forms of making content available.…

View Post

defamation

Social media liability for defamation: Giustra v Twitter

“Tweets span international boundaries, making for jurisdictional issues with respect to the adjudication of legal claims relating to them.” This is opening line in a lengthy decision of a British Columbia court in Giustra v Twitter, Inc.,[1] holding that the court had territorial competence over Twitter to adjudicate claims arising from defamatory tweets disseminated by users and relayed on Twitter’s social media platform.

The case is significant. First, because of Justice Myers’ holding that the B.C. court had jurisdiction over Twitter to rule on its liability.…

View Post

Google’s loss in online defamation case Trkulja v Google

There is a repeating pattern in online defamation cases against Google. An individual’s reputation is alleged to be tarnished by Google’s search results or its autocomplete feature. The individuals plead with Google for help. As one of the Internet’s most important gatekeepers, Google is in a position to stop the damage, especially because its algorithms are the source of it. Google refuses to help, or does so only partially. Courts rule against Google finding it a publisher, at least once it has notice.…

View Post

Is Google a publisher according to Google? The Google v Equustek and Duffy cases

Is Google, the operator of the world’s most popular search engine, a publisher entitled to the constitutional protections accorded to publishers of free speech? Or is Google a passive/neutral intermediary which has no control over what its search engine algorithms disseminate and which doesn’t publish the information in, or hyperlinked to, it’s search results? Google argues it is and is not a publisher, depending on which position will best exonerate it from legal demands including court orders that it de-index URLs and websites from which illegal content is made available.…

View Post

defamation

Google liable for defamation through search and autocomplete features: Duffy v Google

Is Google liable for defamation for not removing defamatory information in search results? Is Google liable for defamation as a secondary publisher by including hyperlinks to a website that contains defamatory materials when the hyperlink is included in search results? Finally, is Google liable for defamation when its Autocomplete and Related Search features produce suggested search inquires that are defamatory? According to the recent decision of an Australian Court in Duffy v Google Inc., [2015] SASC 170 (27 October 2015), yes to all, at least once Google has received notice of these activities and fails to stop them within a reasonable period of time.…

View Post

defamation

Message board operators liable for defamatory posts says court: Baglow v. Smith

You know a defamation case is going to be a good one when it starts like this:

Political debate in the Internet blogosphere can be, and, often is, rude, aggressive, sarcastic, hyperbolic, insulting, caustic and/or vulgar. It is not for the faint of heart. This case is an action in defamation involving political bloggers on the Internet.

The case is Baglow v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 1175. One of the issues in the case was whether the moderator of a message board who does not remove defamatory content is liable as a publisher for defamation purposes.…

View Post

Google liability for defamation on Blogger.com: Tamiz v Google

Last week the UK Court of Appeal in Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (14 February 2013) ruled that Google, as the host of the Blogger.com site, had potential liability for defamation by failing to take down or disable access to defamatory content once it receives notice that it is hosting such content.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the UK High Court in Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) (02 March 2012) which had dismissed a claim against Google for not taking down or removing access to allegedly defamatory statements posted on Blogger.com.…

View Post

Subscribe