Man Battling Google Wins $500K For Search Result Links Calling Him a Pedophile (arstechnica.com) 32
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A Montreal man spent years trying to hold Google accountable for search results linking to a defamatory post falsely accusing him of pedophilia that he said ruined his career. Now Google must pay $500,000 after a Quebec Supreme Court judge ruled that Google relied on an "erroneous" interpretation of Canadian law in denying the man's requests to remove the links. "Google variously ignored the Plaintiff, told him it could do nothing, told him it could remove the hyperlink on the Canadian version of its search engine but not the US one, but then allowed it to re-appear on the Canadian version after a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in an unrelated matter involving the publication of hyperlinks," judge Azimuddin Hussain wrote in his decision (PDF) issued on March 28.
The plaintiff was granted anonymity throughout the proceedings. Google has been ordered not to disclose any identifiable information about him in connection to the case for 45 days. The tech company must also remove all links to the defamatory post in search results viewable in Quebec. [...] Instead of compensatory and punitive damages originally sought -- amounting to $6 million -- the man was awarded $500,000 for moral injuries caused after successfully arguing that he lost business deals and suffered strains on his personal relationships due to being wrongly stigmatized as a pedophile. Hussain described the plaintiff's experience battling Google to preserve his reputation as a "waking nightmare." Due to Google's refusals to remove the defamatory posts, the man "found himself helpless in a surreal and excruciating contemporary online ecosystem as he lived through a dark odyssey to have the Defamatory Post removed from public circulation," Hussain wrote. The plaintiff, now in his early 70s, has the option to appeal the judge's order that Google may not release any of his identifiable information for 45 days.
The plaintiff was granted anonymity throughout the proceedings. Google has been ordered not to disclose any identifiable information about him in connection to the case for 45 days. The tech company must also remove all links to the defamatory post in search results viewable in Quebec. [...] Instead of compensatory and punitive damages originally sought -- amounting to $6 million -- the man was awarded $500,000 for moral injuries caused after successfully arguing that he lost business deals and suffered strains on his personal relationships due to being wrongly stigmatized as a pedophile. Hussain described the plaintiff's experience battling Google to preserve his reputation as a "waking nightmare." Due to Google's refusals to remove the defamatory posts, the man "found himself helpless in a surreal and excruciating contemporary online ecosystem as he lived through a dark odyssey to have the Defamatory Post removed from public circulation," Hussain wrote. The plaintiff, now in his early 70s, has the option to appeal the judge's order that Google may not release any of his identifiable information for 45 days.
Good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Google needs to learn they cannot hide behind "it's the computer!" excuse. They are responsible for what their programs did.
This case is similar to the earlier one where they destroyed evidence. When a court order comes knocking, they should damn well be sure their programs complied with the court order, or they can GTFO of that country.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh but there are much wealthier people who have a lot more to lose than $500K who might make that next lawsuit a little bit more unpleasant. Remember Defamation awards tend to be about (potential) lost income.
God help them if Bill Gates or someone like that decides all the whacky conspiracy theories about him being an evil baby eating vampire or whatever constitute a reasonable claim for compensation. That might end up counting up to a bit more than the $500K awarded here.
Small cases can lead to big precedents.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Funny)
God help them if Bill Gates or someone like that decides all the whacky conspiracy theories about him being an evil baby eating vampire or whatever constitute a reasonable claim for compensation. That might end up counting up to a bit more than the $500K awarded here
you're assuming those theories are not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
> you're assuming those theories are not true.
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out there to get you.
Re: (Score:2)
you're assuming those theories are not true.
Well, he had every opportunity to defend himself. When asked "Have you renounced being a vampire and stopped eating babies?", Gates was unable to to provide a simple yes or no answer that would clear his name.
Re: (Score:2)
He simply can answer "No, I have not renounced anything".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
While the cost may be relatively small compared to their profits, businesses don't work like that. If one department loses money they don't just say "oh, it's okay, overall we are still making a profit".
It also sets a precedent that others can use. If Google doesn't fix this then other people will sue them as well.
The most likely result of this is that Google implements something like the EU's right to be forgotten for Canadian citizens, which would be a major win for privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
It also sets a precedent that others can use. If Google doesn't fix this then other people will sue them as well.
Precedent is why the amount is far too low.
I don't believe it should be about "teaching google a lesson" given what a corporation really is.
However it absolutely should be about righting the wrong, and a court can only do so much about it.
Anyone harmed in this way has their career ruined, and certainly a large part of their entire life too.
One thing a court can absolutely do is fix the problem of no longer being able to earn a living, by awarding damages large enough so they can pay for a living without nee
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, Google "scraped" public web sites and reported the information, however wrong those web sites may have been. If that's not "user content", I don't know what it. So, if that's user content and Google got sued and lost, then doesn't the protection for Section 230 go out? I understand this is in a Canadian court, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google needs to learn they cannot hide behind "it's the computer!" excuse. They are responsible for what their programs did.
I don't support this anymore than I would support the power company being held responsible for powering machine tools used to rob a bank.
I don't support it anymore than I would support telephone company being held responsible for forwarding slanderous voices.
I think it is dangerous to support legal regimes that make everyone guilty for shit other people do. It's not Google's problem that they couldn't secure a court order to compel removal.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the power and phone companies limit their services in all kinds of ways to comport with the law. They don't just blindly provide service to anyone and don't continue to provide service if they know that it is being used for illegal activities.
Google already limits its indexing in all kinds of ways, that's why a "dark web" even exists, because it isn't indexed by major search engines.
So, given that they are already limiting their indexing, why should we not expect them to further limit their indexi
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the power and phone companies limit their services in all kinds of ways to comport with the law. They don't just blindly provide service to anyone and don't continue to provide service if they know that it is being used for illegal activities.
The extent of the utilities giving a fuck is whether the customers pays their bill or commits related fraud and abuse such as bypassing meters, safety hazards and shit like that. They provide power to everyone and have no clue what people are using that power for. They don't adjudicate legality the legal system does that.
Google already limits its indexing in all kinds of ways, that's why a "dark web" even exists, because it isn't indexed by major search engines.
What most think of the "dark web" is comprised of private and overlay networks not directly addressable from the public Internet. This shit isn't indexed both because it isn't publically
Re: (Score:1)
Not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
In no way is $500K enough for allowing a man to be labelled a pedophile on your service when it was absolutely avoidable.
The stress, the loss of social contact, the effect on employment... it's worth at least a couple of million in damages before you start in on the punitive stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
From the judgement:
As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.
The same lawyer informed him of the immunity conferred on internet service providers by U.S. federal law, specifically section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Re: (Score:3)
ok, but I wonder why he didn't go after the original defamatory post, instead of getting mad at the search engine for indexing that post.
The statute of limitations ran out...at least that's the story... None of this makes much sense... The post itself is still up on ripoff report.
In their FAQ they say the following "Since the Ripoff Report was started in 1998, our general policy has always remained the same - we don't remove Reports/postings in their entirety. We will not remove Reports even when they are claimed to contain defamatory statements. We will not remove Reports even if the original author asks us to do so. Also, contrary to what
Re: (Score:2)
How is it even possible to have a statute of limitations on a fricking website that is constantly pushing (e.g. republishing) libel to anyone who connects to the site via a web browser?
That is how I look at it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Target. You can say something about me right now. Who are you? Where are you? Is "phantomfive" even your real name? How do I find you?
On the other hand sending a process servant over to 225 Broadway Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101 to serve Slashdot Media LLC to inform them they are being sued is significantly easier.
One can often identify the author (Score:2)