Website chief threatens to sue Google for libel

Website chief threatens to sue Google for libel

Tom Warren on 03 July 2007 - 07:52 · 23 comments & 10066 views

Advertisement (Why?)

A British businessman is threatening a landmark legal action against Google, the world's leading internet search engine, after claims that it has defamed him.

Brian Retkin has warn that he will proceed with a libel case against the web giant unless it removes links to defamatory comments about his internet company.

Lawyers for Dotworlds, which registers distinctive domain names, have sent Google what lawyers call a "letter before action".

Mr Renton, 48, the company's managing director, of Wembley, north London, said he would sue if Google did not take down the links about his company posted anonymously. "Based on what I know today, I am determined to go ahead with this," he added.

View: Telegraph

About the Author

Full name: Tom Warren
User name: Tom W
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: View All
More: View Bio New!

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 23 additional comments

#1 Kushan on 03 Jul 2007 - 08:27

What a joke, if search results for a company show results that say the company sucks, well then I guess the company sucks!

#2 Budious on 03 Jul 2007 - 08:55

But now there will be more search results on articles about this company suing over Google articles about their suckage. Kind of a catch twenty-two there.

#3 gigapixels on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:17

What a moron. Google is not responsible for what people think of his company's website. The only thing I can find that this guy wouldn't like is a discussion about some fraud Dotworlds was apparently involved in. It's one result, and it's a discussion. It's not Google's problem that it shows up.

I hope this gets thrown out extremely fast.

(4 replies) #4 n_K on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:22

this moron has obvesly not payed attention in school to the rights of the free speach act, you can say what you want bar a few things and its fine, to the man that thinks he is clever: You clearly have no brain, try hiring someone with the slightest bit of intelligence before coming up with total crap

#4.1 njlouch on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:28

No such act in the UK my friend.

#4.2 n_K on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:37

the thing in the human rights act even, sorry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

#4.3 madkingsoup on 03 Jul 2007 - 10:17

Quote - (n_K said @ #4)

The Human Rights Act is very new - it certainly wouldn't have existed when he was at school and I'm pretty sure they don't teach it even now. Furthermore, one's right to free speech does not extend to being immune from libel action.

#4.4 madkingsoup on 03 Jul 2007 - 10:18

[duplicate deleted]

(1 reply) #5 njlouch on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:27

Ooooh, someone wants some money then!

#5.1 cork1958 on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:58

That's what it's all about!!

(2 replies) #6 +TCLN Ryster on 03 Jul 2007 - 09:40

Google is not responsible for the content on the pages that it indexes. Google didn't create the content and google doesn't host the content. This will (or at least should) get thrown out of court really quickly.

#6.1 Pegus on 03 Jul 2007 - 13:06

Quote - (TCLN Ryster said @ #6)

What about the cached pages then? That's a copy hosted by Google.

Say the website in question was taken down. Even in this case, Google would still be hosting the cached page and making it available.

#6.2 IT_Guy on 03 Jul 2007 - 18:12

Quote - (TCLN Ryster said @ #6)

Wow thats sounds like a statement from an admin over at ThePirateBay!!!!!
Funny why there case hasn't been thrown out yet!!!!!!

(1 reply) #7 madkingsoup on 03 Jul 2007 - 10:15

It's been a while but I'm pretty sure I remember being told that if you repeat a libel, you are just as liable as the original libeller. I guess it hinges on whether a search engine is a publisher or not.

#7.1 SniperX on 03 Jul 2007 - 11:38

That's absolutely correct. A repeat of a libel is a libel to which the publisher can be held accountable. Though as you intimate, I just can't see that Google can be held accountable as a publisher of the libel. A transport for it, yes, but hardly a publisher.

(2 replies) #8 testman on 03 Jul 2007 - 12:03

What I don't understand is that why doesn't he sue the website that actually said it? Or is he just stupid?

#8.1 Ikshaar on 03 Jul 2007 - 13:18

Quote - (testman said @ #

What I don't understand is that why doesn't he sue the website that actually said it? Or is he just stupid?

Well that's a greedy b######... oops ... he is going to sue Google if they index that

#8.2 Primetime2006 on 03 Jul 2007 - 13:20

Quote - (testman said @ #

What I don't understand is that why doesn't he sue the website that actually said it? Or is he just stupid?

No, he is actually very smart. I doubt the company that actually said it has billions of dollars - Google does. Smart choice.

In reality, he might get away with winning this one, the way the courts have been ruling against giant companies in the past.

#9 lbmouse on 03 Jul 2007 - 13:47

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0312/0022.html

Now he can add Neowin to the suit.

#10 GEIST on 03 Jul 2007 - 15:35

Either he's beyond stupid for suing a search engine for displaying soem websites comments about his company or he's just out for the money.

#11 Croquant on 03 Jul 2007 - 15:37

Even if he wins, he loses. Google will bury him in legal fees and endless appeals.
Good luck collecting, dumbass.

(1 reply) #12 neufuse on 03 Jul 2007 - 16:06

Even though he's from the UK isn't he subject to the jurisdiction of California? If so, have fun trying to win this

#12.1 evo_spook on 03 Jul 2007 - 23:23

dunno, it could work the other way, Google could be subject to eh jurisdiction of the UK

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)

Neowin.net

Website chief threatens to sue Google for libel

Share this Article

About the Author

Related news