Case Law, Ireland: McKeogh v John Doe 1 (No.2), Facebook, Google and mandatory take down injunctions

In November 2011, Eoin McKeogh was falsely branded as a thief on YouTube, Google, Facebook and a number of websites.  This was the result of a video and accompanying material which wrongly identified him as a man leaving a taxi without paying the fare in Monkstown, Dublin.  Mr Keogh has, since that date, made great efforts to remove this material from the internet.

Case Law: Rana v Google Australia – Google continues to resist claims for publication – Gervase de Wilde

Google has for the most part successfully fought off attempts to make it liable for third party publications, or search results. But, given the company’s enormous power and influence over the online world, it is unsurprising that claims against it and its subsidiaries continue to be brought. In Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd ([2013] FCA 60), an Australian court considered whether such a claim could be made, or served on the American parent company.

Case Law: Tamiz v Google Inc, Google may be a common law publisher – Gervase de Wilde

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Tamiz v Google Inc ([2013] EWCA Civ 68) comes at a moment when defamation on the internet is in the spotlight. It has been ‘the elephant in the room’ during the Leveson inquiry, it is being considered in relation to this year’s Defamation Bill, and has recently been the subject of decisions by Commonwealth courts which have diverged from the established position in England and Wales. The judgment is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the topic.

Google, privacy and a new kind of lawsuit – Paul Bernal

Yesterday was Data Privacy Day – and new lawsuit has been launched against Google in the UK – one which highlights a number of key issues. It could be very important – a ‘landmark case’ according to a report on Reuters. The most notable thing about the case, for me, is that it is consumer-led: UK consumers are no longer relying on the authorities, and the Information Commissioner’s Office in particular, to safeguard their privacy. They’re taking it into their own hands.

Case Law, Australia, Trkulja v Google Inc, $200,000, Second Big Win to Send Google into a Frenzy – Justin Castelan

In Silicon Valley, Google’s legal representatives will now be reinventing their business models, acquainting themselves with Australian defamation law and generally wincing, as for what seems to be the first time, a common law court has determined that, for the purposes of defamation, Google can be treated as a publisher of its search engine results.

Defamation claims and Google’s autocomplete – Gervase de Wilde

Google’s autocomplete function has become yet another of the company’s range of services which most internet users use unthinkingly. It offers suggested terms according to the characters you have already typed, based on other users’ search activities, and on the content of existing web pages. The user-driven nature of internet search means that the suggestions it makes for particular individuals’ names are not necessarily those that they would welcome themselves, or ones which are genuinely useful.

Should the Duchess of Cambridge call upon Google to assist in restoring her privacy? – Tim Lowles

So, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been successful in obtaining an injunction against Closer magazine from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre, preventing the magazine from re-publishing or selling topless pictures of the Duchess.  Is that the end of the story? Far from it, the story will continue for ever thanks to the internet.