3 ms·

This was about content, not just hyperlinking. On page 5 the judgement clearly talks about full search results where each result is “comprised [of the] title o

• cwillu 4y ago
  I mean, it was brought up, but the opinion seems dismissive: “Unlike the position in Duffy, no feature of the content of the particular organic search result in the present case has been found to have operated as an enticement or encouragement to click on the hyperlink.” [¶71] (Description of Duffy for reference: “Thus, in Google Inc v Duffy 91 with reference to Hird v Wood, the content of the snippet component of several Google search results was said to have been such as to "entice" a third party to click on the hyperlink in those search results to obtain more information. That was because the snippet component "naturally invite[d] the reader to click on the hyperlink for explanation and elaboration" of the matter 92 , such as to be aptly described as "the electronic analogue of the person who places a post-it note on a book which reads 'go to page 56 to read interesting gossip about X'" 93 .” [¶67])