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 Friday in a court in New South Wales, Australia, after it failed to immediately follow an order to take down negative reviews about a Sydney business.
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 was being withheld, filed a legal action against Google on July 4, according to various news reports, claiming the negative comments were defamatory and were harming his unnamed business. He is represented by Rebekah Giles, a partner in the Sydney office of U.K. law firm Kennedys. Giles did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court said the reviews should be taken down. When they were still online July 5, the court charged Google with contempt. Google took them down Saturday.
In the past, Google's lawyers have said it waits on a court order to remove 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 Corporate Counsel on Wednesday that generally in the U.S., statements of opinion in such reviews are protected under the First Amendment, unless there is a false statement of fact.
Kirtley said, “Who has jurisdiction and whose law applies in an internet context is still unsettled. But countries tend to want to enforce their own laws.”
So Google's general counsel probably is not in a winning position in libel or privacy areas in Australia, she explained.
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 Australian Guardian, 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, which did not immediately respond to questions about its policies, along with other online platforms, have argued that any fight should be between the person who left a negative review and the business being reviewed. Again, as Kirtley noted, some countries disagree with that view.
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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: Shortly After Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan’s Retirement, Quinn Emanuel Scores Appellate Win for Vimeo
Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
How Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
Trending Stories
- 1‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
- 2MoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
- 3Antitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
- 4People in the News—Jan. 22, 2025—Knox McLaughlin, Saxton & Stump
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be Open to Opportunities, Ready to Seize Them When They Arise,' Says Lara Shortz of Michelman & Robinson
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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