Slashdot Mirror
CPA Googles For His Name, Sues Google For Libel
fbform writes "Mark Maughan, an accountant, searched Google for his name on March 25 2003 and found some 'alarming, false, misleading and injurious' information about himself and his firm. Therefore, he is now suing Google, Yahoo (which used Google as its search engine at the time), AOL (for using Google to enhance its search results) and Time Warner (because they're the same company as AOL) for libel. Specifically, his lawyer John Girardi believes that Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context when displaying search results."
Last i checked Libel required some form of intent since google's results are computer generrated by the web spiders where the intent do the spiders have it out for him?
Mark Maughan can't have an orgasm unless he kills a dog.
So in other words he is suing Google, et al. for pointing to publicly available records that are not flattering. The odd side effect is now that everyone will see this link and know all the sorted details about he and his law firm. Before he made this fuss no one would have cared. Maybe he will sue me too for posting this link. Hmm. . . .
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
This page seems to list some disciplinary action taken against his law firm. I quote from the "Cause for Discipline" column (all emphasis mine):
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Sounds like someone knew they'd have no luck taking on the state and decided to try and get some quick cash out a Google. Nice try.
The reason he is suing is because "Surrender of license accepted." is shown in the description, while it actually is carried over from a section on the page which doesn't refer to his company. Though if you view the page you'll see that the company is actually on probation for 3 years. The site linked to is actually http://www.dca.ca.gov. Now, apparently, this guy thinks that if Google sampled some of the results on the page, and accidentally showed that, Google is somehow responsible for libel.
Personally, I think he's insane, but I can see his position on this because it does look misleading. I just hope he doesn't win anything.
Yeah, I was thinking of that Penny Arcade reference too.
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
Actually this search does turn up that he was in trouble before with the state: Mark+Maughan+cpa.
Joking aside, the information he's unhappy about being listed for him included a .ca.gov site (which lists disciplinary proceedings). So it's already a matter of public record. I think he's suing because this is the first hit, which he claims is misleading. Well, it's in a public database - I actually think Google is doing us a service.
Any competent judge will throw this out right away, same as happened to that Search King dickwad.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.''
I'd be tempted to point out that if he admits the claims are true, it wouldn't be libel. I know he claims that it's taken out of context, but I'm reasonably sure that context is unimportant; assuming a party has full rights to reproduce in part or in whole the information (which in this case Google does, since Mr. Maughan doesn't own the information being presented), I see no legal issues with reproducing it only in part. I thought that if it were factual, it would not be libel, regardless of context. Not positive, though.
Either way, he clearly hopes for a quick settlement (though I don't think that will happen; precedence on this would just really hurt Google, so they're bound to fight it). No way this is going to help his reputation, after all.
For those of you who aren't in Los Angeles... The "South Bay" is the southern part of Los Angeles: The Redondo Beach/San Pedro/Long Beach area.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
This has lead to some interesting situations in Britain where the "defendent has to prove innocence" rules that pecularily apply to libel (well, in fairness, the prosection does have to prove the defendent made the allegation, and that it harmed the reputation of the person the defendent is being accused of having libelled, but once that's proved, the onus is on the defendent to prove the allegation is true.) I'm aware, for example, of cases where a libel case defendent won on the grounds that the person "libelled" didn't have a reputation to begin with - Derek Jameson, a newspaper editor, lost a case for that reason and there are more extreme cases that have never reached court. If I were to falsely accuse a convicted rapist of raping someone, that person would have a hard time bringing a libel case against me.
Likewise the theoretical possibility of cases where someone makes a true, provable, accusation, and loses a libel case (with the court agreeing that the allegation is true) is a possibility. The only cases I can think of off the top of my head never went to court. Accuse someone of being a liar or fraud over something trivial ("He is a liar your honour, someone told me he ducked out of their party early feigning illness, and then turned out to have gone to another later that evening!") in the context of something serious, and you could be in a whole heap of trouble.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
California Civil Code covers libel thusly:
44. Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander.
45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.
45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a of this code.
[snip]
48a (b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel, and no other[.]
There's some other information in that section which requires more ability to read legalese than I possess, but it does not seem that he has much of a case, because the presentation of this information is in the context of a privileged communication, which is defined in Section 47 (and is too long to reproduce here) but basically protects that published under legal requirements or as part of official records or proceedings, which this is. Google is no more at fault here than would be the clerk recorder of his county for presenting the information to someone asking about him.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.