Google Faces Contempt Charge in Australia For Failing to Remove Negative Reviews
In a statement, Google said it takes court orders seriously and responds to them in a timely manner. It has since removed the reviews.
July 10, 2019 at 04:46 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Google LLC is facing contempt charges in a court in New South Wales, Australia, after it failed to immediately follow an order to take down negative reviews about a high-profile Sydney businessman.
In a statement, Google said it takes court orders seriously and responds to them in a timely manner. It has since removed the reviews.
The businessman, whose name is being withheld, filed legal proceedings against Google on July 4, according to various news reports, claiming the negative comments were defamatory and were harming his unnamed business.
The businessman is represented by Rebekah Giles, a partner in the Sydney office of the U.K.-based global law firm Kennedys. Giles did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In response to the businessman's filing, the New South Wales Supreme Court issued an injunction and demanded that Google remove defamatory reviews about the prominent businessman. But Google did not take down the posts, and instead, additional damaging reviews of the businessman were posted on Google Reviews that night. When they were still online on Friday, the court charged Google with contempt. Google took down the reviews on Saturday.
In the past, Google's lawyers have said it waits for a court order before removing material because the company should not be the arbiter of what is "defamatory" – the definition of which can vary from country to country.
Jane Kirtley, professor of media law and ethics at the University of Minnesota, told Law.com's Corporate Counsel on Wednesday that in the U.S., statements of opinion in such reviews are generally protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution unless there is a false statement of fact.
"Who has jurisdiction and whose law applies in an internet context is still unsettled," Kirtley said. "But countries tend to want to enforce their own laws."
She added that Google's general counsel is therefore probably not in a winning position in libel or privacy areas in Australia.
The company also has argued in past cases that removing negative reviews can work against consumer rights.
In April, according to an article in The Guardian Australia, Google noted that an Australian consumer watchdog agency had taken action against a deceptive car-for-hire company. That same company, Google said, had won court orders against Google 18 months earlier, forcing it to take down consumers' negative reviews.
Google did not immediately respond to questions about its policies, but the company and other online platforms have argued that any fight should be between the person who left a negative review and the business being reviewed.
Google has been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court on Friday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250