Google Apparently No Longer Humoring Court Orders To Delist Defamatory Content

from the 'it's-called-the-CDA,-and-you're-going-to-want-to-scroll-down-to-Sec dept

Chris Silver Smith, writing for Search Engine Land, notes that Google seems to have stopped responding to defamation lawsuit court orders.

A number of attorneys who specialize in online defamation/libel cases have reported to me that Google has recently suspended its longstanding, informal policy of removing URLs from US search results that are specified in duly executed court orders. This poses a major paradigm shift for many victims of online reputation attacks.

Beginning around August or September of this year, a number of attorneys from across the US began receiving blanket denials after submitting requests to remove defamatory content from Google’s search results.

That timing seems to coincide with Paul Alan Levy/Public Citizen's intervention in a case where an order to delist traced back to a dentist unhappy with an online review. The eventual delisting by Google came as the result of a bogus lawsuit -- filed with or without the knowledge of the dentist Mitul Patel -- against a bogus defendant. The fake "Matthew Chan" signed a document agreeing to remove his review and the court ordered Google to take it down.

Another similarly-fake lawsuit followed soon after. Levy, working with Eugene Volokh, has managed to uncover the shady reputation management firm behind a stack of bogus libel lawsuits, all filed against nonexistent defendants.

Smith makes no mention of those efforts in his article questioning Google's actions. He does, however, point to Pissed Consumer's uncovering of the same tactics earlier in the year: bogus lawsuits designed from the ground up to obtain court orders for the delisting of URLs.

In the spring, Pissed Consumer reported that a number of suspicious lawsuits with purportedly bogus defendants were filed in California courts to obtain defamation court orders enabling URLs to get delisted by Google. In October, Pissed Consumer sued a reputation management company and attorneys that are alleged to be behind “sham lawsuits” and “stooge defendants” that were used to fool Google into removing undesirable consumer reviews.

Undoubtedly, Pissed Consumer's work pushed Google to scrutinize defamation court orders more closely, but Levy's findings likely tipped the scale. Smith feels these bogus lawsuits may have been a factor, but the legal documents he's been forwarded by other attorneys don't share the same "sloppiness" and "commonalities" of those Pissed Consumer uncovered.

This change in policy obviously poses problems for those who have obtained court orders for delisting.

For the attorneys and their clients who are now failing to procure intervention on the part of Google after they have gone through ofttimes-lengthy and costly litigation processes, the abrupt apparent change in policy and lack of explanation are upsetting and confusing.

Of course, the people to blame for this policy shift aren't employed at Google. They work for -- or run -- sketchy reputation management services that overpromise and underdeliver. A few thought they'd found a loophole in the legal system. It has worked for some, but that little fraudulent joyride is now apparently over.

But Google never had to comply with these orders in the first place -- even those obtained legitimately. Section 230 of the CDA says Google isn't legally responsible for third-party postings, which would basically be everything the search engine indexes. If it has been compliant in the past, it has been going above and beyond what's legally expected of it.

As legitimate lawyers are aware (or at least should be…), the proper target for a defamation lawsuit is the author of the libelous statements. Targeting service providers for third-party content is the wrong way to handle this.

Smith points out that the new Google status quo sucks for victims of defamation, who have often found the search engine to be a relief valve of sorts that allowed them to see unfavorable statements delisted without having to take on more antagonistic sites like Ripoff Report head-on. But while it's true addressing online defamation can be expensive and fatiguing, Google's willingness to allow plaintiffs to cut corners hasn't done it any favors.

Plaintiffs represented by Smith's colleagues aren't the only ones who are going to be hurting.

If this new paradigm becomes status quo, the attorneys expert in these matters will likely halt assisting new clients, because there will be no way to reasonably predict positive outcomes, and risk of failure will be too high.

Once again, some of the blame for the current situation rests on those who have "predicted positive outcomes" based on using search engines as a proxy defendant. If attorneys (and reputation management firms) hadn't gotten into the habit of sending orders to Google, rather than seeking out the online commenters behind the libelous statements, this decision wouldn't be so difficult to take.

Filed Under: bogus lawsuits, cda 230, defamation, delisting, reputation management, search engine optimization, section 230
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Matthew Chan (profile), 5 Jan 2017 @ 10:09pm

    Re: Re: I Notified Search Engine Land early on but they Ignored Story

    Hello Chris,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response and feedback. I appreciate it very much and read it in the good spirit your response was intended. Allow me to return the favor and elaborate on my comments. I think I did read that you might be a guest writer (not a staff writer) for SEL and hence, you would probably not receive any story leads from SEL. And even if you did, I understand you are not obligated to act upon them. I have no issues with that.

    I also accept you at your word that you did not read any of the Levy/Volokh articles. My point was that the "fake defendant to remove Yelp review" story has been around since the end of August 2016. For many of us following this, it is now an older story that just gets periodic updates as Techdirt has done but perhaps it is "new" to SEL.

    For the record, I do not feel personally snubbed by anyone. I actually have a great deal of respect for SEL as I am a frequent reader. I am a relatively unknown individual and I have no illusions about that. I simply think that it seems strange that no search engine blog (that I know of) has picked up on the Levy/Volokh stories given the clear emphasis that an elaborate and deceptive lawsuit scheme to clean up Yelp reviews and to ultimately scrub Google entries. The simple explanation might simply be that the SE corner of the Internet did not see what was being written in the 1A corner of the Internet.

    But honestly, I thought the SE industry would have great interest and caught wind of these stories earlier. Certainly, Techdirt has been covering related stories (PissedConsumer, for example) even prior to the Baltimore Patel case. I acknowledge that the Internet is a HUGE place and it is impossible to know everything that is being written in a different corner of the Internet. Having said that, there simply are a good number of non-SE blogs/websites who did pick up the story the last few months such as shown here: http://defiantly.net/media-press-coverage-of-profile-defenders-shady-lawsuit-removal-scheme/

    That is not opinion, that is a fact. And if the SE industry blogs/sites have picked up on the story, then I haven't found any recently.

    Regarding how or what you write, I occasionally write my own pieces and I understand that every writer gets to choose what sources or information they want to incorporate. You are certainly not obligated to write anything to please or accommodate anyone except perhaps the publication (SEL) that publishes your piece. I accept that. I chimed in to comment because Tim Cushing made reference to your article and noted the interesting/coincidental timing of the Baltimore Patel case (which later led to other case and the discovery of the Richart Ruddie/Profile Defender connection) to the sudden slowdown of Google responsiveness to removing entries from their search entries. That caught my eye.

    Regarding naming or quoting your experts, I understand the idea of protecting your sources and I have no problems with that if that is what you think you are doing. I accept you at your word and your explanation (not that you ever owed me one to begin with) now that you offered it. However, whether you realize it or not, there is an undercurrent of distrust in some aspects of the "search engine removal/takedown industry". In my view, there are some "not so elegant" practices in the SE industry and some seem to make a point of excessively staying under the radar. But to be fair, the same can be said for most industries. You can thank many of the "reputation experts" for coloring my views.

    And just to let you know, I am not anti-takedown or anti-removal but I think people need to be honest that there is a good bit of questionable takedowns occurring which I speculate is why Google is not just accepting all court orders at face value.

    Thank you again for your excellent response. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.