6 ms·

Court orders Google to pay $115k damages for defamatory search engine results

43 points by qzervaas 11y ago

mkx 11y ago
Is this not an awfully scary precedent? How can Google be expected to modify it's algorithm on-demand in these cases?
- tantalor 11y ago
  https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324 https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324 https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061 https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    >We also remove content in response to valid legal requests >If you want to remove a photo, profile link, or webpage from Google Search results, you usually need to ask the website owner (webmaster) to remove the information. It seems she didn't get a judgement against Ripoff Report first. Google is not to blame here.
mfoy_ 11y ago
On one hand this seems bad because it implies that Google is sanctioning the links it returns... it's just a search engine, not a content curator. But the IP people have been making Google take down links for years so I suppose it's not that different. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- leereeves 11y ago
  Verifying the truth of every anecdote, review, news report, and wiki page Google links to sounds far more difficult than managing copyright claims. If this stands, will everyone in Australia be able to have pages about them removed from Google searches with a simple request?
  - nanoflower 11y ago
    My interpretation is that the case specifically hinged on whether auto-complete suggestions were published by Google, not the search results themselves.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-... mentions extracts, links, and auto-complete results. My interpretation was that all three were considered defamatory.
nanoflower 11y ago
One allegation is that RipoffReport is basically extorting people by having third parties post unredactable negative reviews on their "forum" and then asking a price to have them removed. RipoffReport is not liable because the forum posts are deemed user generated content, but in this case, Google's autocomplete suggestions are deemed to be published by Google, hence Google's liability. Is this understanding correct?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
etimberg 11y ago
Anyone have the text? uBlock Origin blocks the site.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Alternative article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-...
  - etimberg 11y ago
    Thanks!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Avalaxy 11y ago
I think Google is not wrong here. It's just a search engine that allows you to search for a phrase on websites all over the internet. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. It should be left as an exercise to the reader to determine what information is factual and what information is not factual. I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not.
- will_brown 11y ago
  >It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. But it does, by its very nature Google removes some websites from its results and attaches a value to websites it does include in the form of Google search result rankings. It appears in other cases the court also found issue with the autocomplete functions produced by Google. Also it would not appear anyone expected Google's algorithm to determine truth as you suggest, at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content. And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information instead, not a search engine linking to that information. But, of course, Google is a bigger target, and makes for an easier emotional argument about "those foreign corporations", and foreign courts seem all too happy to entertain such arguments. I don't care whether the original site's posting is true or false; I hope Google wins this on appeal either way. (By contrast, I'd have absolutely no problem with a defamation judgment against the actual site hosting the information, and if that site removes it, so will Google.)
profinger 11y ago
I see this quickly having a Streisand Effect...
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  This is not an attempt to avoid say, knowledge of what a house looks like. If anything, Professor Duffy is more than happy to have the legitimate information about her reputation and this case out there. The problem is with the placement and publicity of false information. She's made multiple public statements and attempts to broadcast her side of this, so it isn't the sort of thing where the Streisand Effect would apply.
yitchelle 11y ago
tldr did a story on the Ripoff Report. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/
- codezero 11y ago
  That's Reply All (same hosts as TLDR). This is a great listen.
nowaymate 11y ago
If you're name was at the top of Google as being a Woman beating peadophile and you had tried everything to get rid of it, I'm sure you'd try and get Google to remove it from their index too. The reputation, career and professional damage can be massive from something like this.
- ratsmack 11y ago
  There are many names that are exact duplicates. Searches that are correct for one person may not be correct for the other, so I cannot see a definitive resolution for the problem.
- TezzellEnt 11y ago
  Dr Janice Duffy, the woman in the article, had many false & libelous statements written about her on a website - in this case being RipOffReport. Per Google's Removal Policy[1], the search engine forces you to contact a webmaster to remove the offending material yourself, or supply a valid court order of defamation. RipOffReport itself only gives you a few options: 1) She could've written a rebuttal to these claims, or 2) Paid off RipOffReport to do an "Arbitration" (extortion).[2] She also could've sued RipOffReport in addition to Google - but like Google/Reddit/et al, they are protected by the Communications Decency Act in the States - not making them liable for anything users post. In the end, what she should've done was sue the original authors of those posts on RipOffReport - winning the case (burden of proof is on her), and then having Google de-list the search result.[3] Taking the third route in using a court order is by far the best way to go. [1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138 [2] https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx [3] https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en#ts=1115655%2C1282900%2C1115974 https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=e...
njharman 11y ago
I'm curious, is a TV station liable for content of Syndicated shows, or commercials or all the other content it did not produce but choose to show? Are newspapers liable for the quotes they print? I thought not, and that is why they always so careful about saying "it was reported" or "so said who and who" to make clear any quotes were not coming from the paper and so they weren't liable. A search result is even less than a quote. Autosuggest, hmmmm. Can't google sue for defamation for this statement by Dr Janice Duffy “... I beat the bastards,” or this one "... Google can’t come into our country, destroy reputations and get away with it.” Both are defamatory and the first is patently false (maybe so much so it then doesn't count as defamation) the second though is certainly debatable and plausibly harmful to Google.
- gilgoomesh 11y ago
  TV stations are certainly liable for content they didn't produce but choose to show. Newspapers can be liable for simply repeating a quote but newsworthiness is a valid defence, provided the context is reporting rather than promoting the opinion. The question in Google's case is whether the choices applied in their search algorithm constitute promotional choices or whether the engine is merely a robot reporting on available content. I personally think the court is wrong here but promoting versus reporting is the question in play.
  - njharman 11y ago
    Thanks for answer. So were is the line drawn? Is a book shop liable for the content of the news papers they choose sell? Am I liable for a visible, slanderous headline from newspaper I carry on subway? If network chooses to prioritize traffic (i.e. anti-net-neutrality) are they then liable for content of that traffic?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "I'm curious, is a TV station liable for content of Syndicated shows, or commercials or all the other content it did not produce but choose to show?" Well, they chose to show it. So yes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
netheril96 11y ago
If this is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent expanding Google's power, not restricting it. Now many content creators must fight under the judgment of Google, rather than the courts, whether what they write is defamation against another person, or risk their websites unlinked from Google's search results.

43 points by qzervaas 11y ago

mkx 11y ago

Is this not an awfully scary precedent? How can Google be expected to modify it's algorithm on-demand in these cases?

tantalor 11y ago
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324 https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324 https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061 https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  >We also remove content in response to valid legal requests >If you want to remove a photo, profile link, or webpage from Google Search results, you usually need to ask the website owner (webmaster) to remove the information. It seems she didn't get a judgement against Ripoff Report first. Google is not to blame here.

mfoy_ 11y ago

On one hand this seems bad because it implies that Google is sanctioning the links it returns... it's just a search engine, not a content curator. But the IP people have been making Google take down links for years so I suppose it's not that different. Correct me if I'm wrong.

leereeves 11y ago
Verifying the truth of every anecdote, review, news report, and wiki page Google links to sounds far more difficult than managing copyright claims. If this stands, will everyone in Australia be able to have pages about them removed from Google searches with a simple request?
- nanoflower 11y ago
  My interpretation is that the case specifically hinged on whether auto-complete suggestions were published by Google, not the search results themselves.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-... mentions extracts, links, and auto-complete results. My interpretation was that all three were considered defamatory.

nanoflower 11y ago

One allegation is that RipoffReport is basically extorting people by having third parties post unredactable negative reviews on their "forum" and then asking a price to have them removed. RipoffReport is not liable because the forum posts are deemed user generated content, but in this case, Google's autocomplete suggestions are deemed to be published by Google, hence Google's liability. Is this understanding correct?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

etimberg 11y ago

Anyone have the text? uBlock Origin blocks the site.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Alternative article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-researcher-more-than-$100k-for-defamation/7051450 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/google-ordered-to-pay-...
- etimberg 11y ago
  Thanks!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Avalaxy 11y ago

I think Google is not wrong here. It's just a search engine that allows you to search for a phrase on websites all over the internet. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. It should be left as an exercise to the reader to determine what information is factual and what information is not factual. I think you're getting in muddy waters when you're going to let an algorithm decide whether information is correct or not.

will_brown 11y ago
>It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) attach value to that and take a stance/opinion. But it does, by its very nature Google removes some websites from its results and attaches a value to websites it does include in the form of Google search result rankings. It appears in other cases the court also found issue with the autocomplete functions produced by Google. Also it would not appear anyone expected Google's algorithm to determine truth as you suggest, at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > at least in this case the Doctor was in communication with Google and she gave Google multiple opportunities to stop publishing/promoting the false content. And I'm sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of "false" information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information. The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information instead, not a search engine linking to that information. But, of course, Google is a bigger target, and makes for an easier emotional argument about "those foreign corporations", and foreign courts seem all too happy to entertain such arguments. I don't care whether the original site's posting is true or false; I hope Google wins this on appeal either way. (By contrast, I'd have absolutely no problem with a defamation judgment against the actual site hosting the information, and if that site removes it, so will Google.)

profinger 11y ago

I see this quickly having a Streisand Effect...

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
This is not an attempt to avoid say, knowledge of what a house looks like. If anything, Professor Duffy is more than happy to have the legitimate information about her reputation and this case out there. The problem is with the placement and publicity of false information. She's made multiple public statements and attempts to broadcast her side of this, so it isn't the sort of thing where the Streisand Effect would apply.

yitchelle 11y ago

tldr did a story on the Ripoff Report. https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/

codezero 11y ago
That's Reply All (same hosts as TLDR). This is a great listen.

nowaymate 11y ago

If you're name was at the top of Google as being a Woman beating peadophile and you had tried everything to get rid of it, I'm sure you'd try and get Google to remove it from their index too. The reputation, career and professional damage can be massive from something like this.

ratsmack 11y ago
There are many names that are exact duplicates. Searches that are correct for one person may not be correct for the other, so I cannot see a definitive resolution for the problem.
TezzellEnt 11y ago
Dr Janice Duffy, the woman in the article, had many false & libelous statements written about her on a website - in this case being RipOffReport. Per Google's Removal Policy[1], the search engine forces you to contact a webmaster to remove the offending material yourself, or supply a valid court order of defamation. RipOffReport itself only gives you a few options: 1) She could've written a rebuttal to these claims, or 2) Paid off RipOffReport to do an "Arbitration" (extortion).[2] She also could've sued RipOffReport in addition to Google - but like Google/Reddit/et al, they are protected by the Communications Decency Act in the States - not making them liable for anything users post. In the end, what she should've done was sue the original authors of those posts on RipOffReport - winning the case (burden of proof is on her), and then having Google de-list the search result.[3] Taking the third route in using a court order is by far the best way to go. [1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1228138 [2] https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx https://www.ripoffreport.com/Arbitration.aspx [3] https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en#ts=1115655%2C1282900%2C1115974 https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=e...

njharman 11y ago

I'm curious, is a TV station liable for content of Syndicated shows, or commercials or all the other content it did not produce but choose to show? Are newspapers liable for the quotes they print? I thought not, and that is why they always so careful about saying "it was reported" or "so said who and who" to make clear any quotes were not coming from the paper and so they weren't liable. A search result is even less than a quote. Autosuggest, hmmmm. Can't google sue for defamation for this statement by Dr Janice Duffy “... I beat the bastards,” or this one "... Google can’t come into our country, destroy reputations and get away with it.” Both are defamatory and the first is patently false (maybe so much so it then doesn't count as defamation) the second though is certainly debatable and plausibly harmful to Google.

gilgoomesh 11y ago
TV stations are certainly liable for content they didn't produce but choose to show. Newspapers can be liable for simply repeating a quote but newsworthiness is a valid defence, provided the context is reporting rather than promoting the opinion. The question in Google's case is whether the choices applied in their search algorithm constitute promotional choices or whether the engine is merely a robot reporting on available content. I personally think the court is wrong here but promoting versus reporting is the question in play.
- njharman 11y ago
  Thanks for answer. So were is the line drawn? Is a book shop liable for the content of the news papers they choose sell? Am I liable for a visible, slanderous headline from newspaper I carry on subway? If network chooses to prioritize traffic (i.e. anti-net-neutrality) are they then liable for content of that traffic?
s73v3r 11y ago
"I'm curious, is a TV station liable for content of Syndicated shows, or commercials or all the other content it did not produce but choose to show?" Well, they chose to show it. So yes.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

netheril96 11y ago

If this is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent expanding Google's power, not restricting it. Now many content creators must fight under the judgment of Google, rather than the courts, whether what they write is defamation against another person, or risk their websites unlinked from Google's search results.