Google sued over defamatory postings found on web search ; HOME

Google, the world's biggest search engine, is being sued by aLondon businessman in a landmark legal action that could hold the US-based company liable for the publication of inaccurate, malicious ordamaging material on the internet.

The case, the first of its kind in this country that seeks tomake search engines responsible for the content of the internet -could trigger severe restrictions on the free flow of information onthe web. Last night, internet experts warned that if the action wassuccessful it would mean Google could be held liable for the contentof 11.5 billion web pages.

The case is being brought by a 48-year-old man from Wembley whohas instructed a City law firm to begin defamation proceedings afterthe search engine directed users to web pages that the businessmanclaims contained "deeply offensive and commercially damaging"material about his enterprises.

In one anonymous posting on an internet discussion forum, BrianRetkin, managing director of the internet company dotworlds, iswrongly accused of cashing in on the 11 September attacks on Americaby offering the free registration of domain names to the US in a waythat took advantage of the fervent patriotism at the time. In otheranonymous postings, he is wrongly and groundlessly accused ofconducting fraudulent business.

The allegations are believed to have originated in America, whereit is much more difficult to succeed in a libel claim.

US judges have ruled that search engines and other third partyinternet service and product providers are immune from defamationlawsuits. But in Britain, similar legal protection is conditional onthe company not having notice of the complaint. And in Britain thatarea of the law is yet to be fully tested.

Mr Retkin, whose internet company is a domain name registrar (acompany that allows customers to register domain names on theinternet), says he has spent three years trying to persuade Googleto permanently remove the libellous allegations from its searchresults. In a letter sent to Google, Franklin Price, a litigationpartner at the law firm Jeffery Green Russell, has given formalnotice of the defamation action under the court's pro-actionprotocol.

"There comes a point," said Mr Retkin, "when someone must takeresponsibility for this material. These allegations were postedanonymously so there is no way of suing the author. Where it hasappeared on internet discussion forums we have asked them to removeit but it keeps popping up again at other internet addresses. Theonly solution is for Google to remove it and give an undertakingthey will remove it permanently."

In legal correspondence between Mr Retkin and Google, aCalifornia-based company with sales and marketing offices in London,claims it has "blacklisted" the offending links and removed thematerial complained of by Mr Retkin. It also rejects the idea thatit should be responsible for the contents of links produced in aninternet search.

In an email written by Google's legal counsel Harjinder Obhi, thecompany argues: "Google is not responsible for the content of anyresult of a query which may be presented to a user of Google's websearch service. Google has absolutely no connection, control orability to direct or influence the content of web pages which may beshown as links within any given set of search results."

Defamation on the internet

Internet publishers rightly fear the libel laws in this country,which are much stricter than those of other jurisdictions. They knowthe onus is on them to prove the truth of any statement found ontheir websites. Recent UK case law has established that a companybased outside the jurisdiction may not be immune from litigation inthis country if the material can be read by internet users in thiscountry. A successful defamation ruling against a search engine suchas Google would have dramatic consequences for thousands of similarorganisations or internet product providers which refine, channeland forward information. The reason that has not already happened isthat the Defamation Act 1996 offers a defence to an internet productor service provider where it can claim it is unaware of defamatoryor potentially defamatory material it is hosting or material arisingfrom a search result. This protection is supported by the ElectronicCommerce (EC) Directive, 2002. But the Defamation Act stipulatesthat once the company has been put on notice about a complaint itmust take action to remove the material or block access.