Google Loses Autocomplete Defamation Case
superglaze writes "Google has been found liable in an Italian court for defamatory comments made against an anonymous plaintiff — the complainant's name, when googled, elicited autocomplete suggestions that translate as 'con man' and 'fraud.' Google was found not to qualify for EU 'safe harbour' protection because the autocomplete suggestions were deemed to be Google's own creation, and not something merely passing through its systems."
That's it. Clearly Italy has shown that it can't handle the Internet. Someone grab me a chainsaw, I'm cutting their fiberz.
... foreign courts are being used for foreign nations to extort money from business they did not produce and had little connection to its success.
Google should stop providing links to Italian businesses.
Google defended themselves by saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for the output of an algorithm that they created. That's weak.
You left out the key part regarding searches from users. The output is determined by the input, the input is dictated by users.
If you would like to improve your Google search experience, we encourage you to write to your local member of parliament.
Libel and slander are something that Google should be held liable for no different than anyone else.
AFAIK, in order for something to appear in googles suggestions, someone else has to have searched it first. Google isnt creating the suggestion, its simply remembering the search that someone else did and offering it up.
This really isnt any different than google results turning up libel and slander. Google isnt creating it, its simply indexing it.
Obviously they should refrain from disparaging words and remarks in the auto-complete as they cannot possibly predict or verify if such words are libelous or slander against a person.
I find it surprising that you (and the judge) consider autocompleted text to be potentially libellous - as I mentioned in another post, Google's autocomplete function isn't saying (or even implying) that "x is a fraud" is a factual statement, it's saying that "x is a fraud" is a string of words being searched for regularly.
They make no judgement on the veracity, or even the coherence, of the sentence - they simply present it as something that people have been typing in to the search box. To me, that seems very, very different from Google making or publishing the statement in question.