English Court of Appeal Finds Google Could be a Publisher of Defamatory Material

In Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68, the UK Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) considered whether the claimant, Payam Tamiz, should be allowed to serve a defamation claim against Google Inc (Google), a US-based foreign corporation. The claimant alleged that Google failed to remove defamatory content that was posted using its Blogger.com web service, after receiving notice that the material was defamatory. The alleged defamatory material appeared on a blog hosted on the web service Blogger.com beginning on April 28, 2011. Google received a letter of claim about the allegedly defamatory material on July 5, 2011, forwarded the complaint to the creator of the blog on August 11, 2011, and the creator of the blog removed the material on August 14, 2011. The UK High Court (High Court) dismissed the proceeding. The High Court agreed with Google that Google was not a publisher of the alleged defamatory material, but rather a neutral facilitator of the information. Since Google was not a publisher, it did not have an obligation to remove the material, even after it had been notified of its defamatory content. The High Court also concluded that because there was only a short period of time between Google’s being notified of the alleged defamatory material and the content being removed, the potential liability was so trivial that it would be unjust to continue the proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that Google’s potential liability was so trivial that the continuance of the proceedings would be unjust. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s finding that Google was not a publisher. Instead, the Court of Appeal ruled that Google facilitates the publication of blogs on its Blogger.com web service by providing design layout tools, by providing a service that enables the display of advertisements, by requiring users to agree to terms of service, and by having the ability to remove or block access to any blog that does not comply with its terms of service. The Court of Appeal ruled that because of these features, if Google is notified of defamatory material on its Blogger.com web service e and fails to remove it, an inference could be drawn that Google has associated itself with, or made itself responsible for, the continued presence of the material and thereby has become a publisher of the material. And, as a publisher of the material, Google could be liable for defamation. Summary by: Adam Lis