Sometimes it is possible to be too successful? So much so that it actually makes you a target for legal proceedings. Google in recent times appears to have been a major bulls-eye for lawyers and their clients.
In the case of Milorad Trkulja, Google was forced to cough up more than $200,000 in damages to an Australian man who brought his search results to court. Trkulja a Melbourne resident was at a restaurant with his mother in the summer of 2004 when he got shot in the back by an unidentified hitman. The 62-year old music promoter Trkulja survived the attack but a Google search now showed his online reputation didn’t have the same luck. A search for his name on "Google Images" bought up a Who’s Who of Melbourne’s Most Wanted. Results including alleged murderers, drug traffickers and even mob bosses. Even though the only link Trkulja actually had to Melbourne’s underworld was being a victim of an unsolved crime. As a result of Google's search logic (the algorithm that drives its search engine) he was showing up in the same results as were the less than savoury characters accused of shooting him.
Arguing this to be an assault on his reputation and determined to see it end Trkulja launched
his action in the Victorian Courts and succeed in getting damages.
A similar case has arisen where a Port Macquarie surgeon is now suing Google in the USA (in he California District Court) for defamation over an auto-complete search suggestion that he and his lawyers argue has cost him clients. It is claimed that when Google is searched for the surgeon’s name the search also displays the word “bankrupt” and that this association of words is affecting his reputation as a surgeon.
The expected response from Google as it has been in the past when such cases arise is that auto-complete is "a reflection of the search activity of all web users and the content of web pages indexed by Google", essentially arguing that the processes is automated and is not controlled by Google.
Similar cases appear to be arising around the world, for example, the “French court [who] fined Google $65,000 because the search engine's auto-complete function prompted the French word for "crook" when users typed the name of an insurance company”. In another Australian case, the ACCC has taken action in the High Court of Australia where it is claiming that Google should be held responsible for its AdWords rankings and placements. A decision in that case is expected soon.
It will be interesting to see how the standard Google defence that it is just using automatic algorithms and is not acting like a newspaper publishing a story holds up. Certainly as indicated in the press the courts are and will be looking at Google more closely in the future as will many eager legal advisers sensing the opportunity to take big sums in damages from one of the worlds leading technology companies. Sounds like the high price of success?
