> because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the infor

> because it was on notice that the material was defamatory and refused to remove the information, it could not be found to have innocently circulated the information This is the second case she launched against Google. The first one determined that Google was publishing defamatory information, they settled, but continued to publish the information. So this is probably a situation where they should have had a human looking over it. "Looking at every page" doesn't scale, but "looking at every page we lost a court case over" should be doable, you would think.