MICHELE TANTUSSI/GETTY IMAGES
An Australian businessman is suing Google for defamation after the tech giant didn't remove reviews that "trashed" his reputation.
Google is facing a contempt of court charge for failing to remove defamatory reviews about a prominent Sydney businessman, in a landmark case about the legal responsibility of social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube for damaging posts.
As the courts deal with a growing number of cases involving ordinary people suing over slurs on social media, global platforms are under increasing pressure to respond more quickly to requests to take down offensive material.
The US tech giants have historically argued that they are platforms and should not be held legally responsible for defamatory material posted on their sites. The Australian New South Wales Supreme Court case raises the prospect of court sanctions if they do not act swiftly to remove negative posts.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted an urgent injunction requiring Google Australia's US parent company to remove defamatory reviews about the high-profile Sydney businessman, whose name was suppressed by the court. Google was also restrained from allowing any reviews about the man to be uploaded for a limited time.
READ MORE:
* Taxing Google is a bad idea for New Zealand
* Google to the rescue when reading tea leaves you with sense of dread
* The Little guy takes on Google
* Google makes no changes after emailing out Grace Millane murder accused
* Nice on the phone, then a nasty one-star review - customer whinges hurt
* Australian court deems Google responsible for links to defamatory websites
The businessman is suing Google for defamation after making repeated requests to the company for the offending posts to be removed from Google Reviews.
Overnight on Thursday, the reviews had not been removed and further defamatory reviews were posted. His lawyers returned to court and Justice David Davies made orders late on Friday directing the registrar of the court to charge the company with contempt of court.
"This is the first instance of contempt by Google Review that I'm aware of in Australia," said Professor David Rolph, a media law expert at the University of Sydney.
The offending material has since been removed from Google Reviews. A spokesperson for Google said on Saturday that "when we receive court orders we take them seriously and respond in a timely manner".
Law firm Kennedys partner Rebekah Giles, who is acting for the businessman, said that "in the past two years I have received an increased number of instructions from clients who are being extorted by disgruntled customers or others, [or] trolled by competitors or other aggrieved parties through global digital platforms like Google, Facebook and YouTube".
"I am rarely able to give these clients any comfort or certainty that anything can be done," she said.
"While my clients follow the removals procedure, Google is rarely responsive in a timely fashion or at all, by which time the reputations and livelihoods of my clients have been trashed, spread amongst friends and family and industry."
The removals process involves submitting a request using an online form, which is directed to the California-based Google LLC.
In this case, Giles said her client had been in "constant communication with Google for many years" and his business "has had to go to the significant expense of using my firm to get the attention of Google in order to protect its digital reputation".
"The ordinary person does not have the resources or the appetite to agitate matters with a global giant like Google through the legal process," she said.
"The removals process does not work and it is very difficult to get assistance from Google LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary, Google Australia."
123RF
The removals process involves submitting a request using an online form, which is directed to the California-based Google LLC.
In a decision that is likely to be the subject of an appeal, the NSW Supreme Court ruled last month that media organisations including The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian were liable for the allegedly defamatory comments of readers on their Facebook pages. This was so even though the plaintiff had not asked the outlets to remove the comments.
The states and territories are currently reviewing the country's outdated defamation laws and expect to begin enacting changes from June 2020.
NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman, who kicked off the review in June last year, said "the NSW-led national reform process is aimed at providing a cyber-age reboot to defamation law across Australia".
"During this process, the defamation working party is consulting widely with both publishers and plaintiff representatives to ensure the resulting reforms are fit for the digital age," he said.
Google and other digital platforms are able to rely on a number of protections in Australian defamation law, including the defence of innocent dissemination. But they may be liable for defamation if they are alerted to defamatory material and do not remove it.
Giles said "the [Australian] government should act to ensure that Google, Facebook and Twitter are accountable. These companies should not be allowed to operate here if they do not follow Australian laws and court orders. It's as simple as that".
The court has the power to consider a range of sanctions including jail time and or a fine.
Sydney Morning Herald
