3 ms·
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
by acjohnson55 5y ago
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
- pavon 5y agoFor libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category. Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bcrosby95 5y ago> Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake. A reasonable person would realize which part was a mistake: that it's a picture of the serial killer, or that the serial killer died in the 80s?
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoFalsely claiming that someone committed a serious crime is per se defamation in many jurisdictions. There is no need to prove actual damage. It is damaging by definition.
- pvaldes 5y agoEasy to provide when will be detained at random airport for 10 hours until the authorities will triple-check all the info until everybody and the janitor will be satisfied. People has been stopped to take their fly for much less.
- wicket 5y agoI don't think it matters whether they fix it or not. Evidence help with establishing the severity, but in most countries this sort of thing would be classed as defamation of character. This guy should be entitled to something and ought to sue regardless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]