Liability of Tech Companies for Defamation

Liability of Tech Companies for Defamation

1)   INTRODUCTION

In today’s digital world, technology has significantly changed how we share and access information, leading to new challenges in holding people accountable. One major issue is the defamation liability of tech companies which play a key role in hosting and managing online content. Finding the right balance between protecting free speech and preventing damage is a complex legal challenge. In this post, we will look at the difference in liabilities of companies for defamation with regard to notable cases.

2)   SUMMARY OF DUFFY V GOOGLE LLC (AUSTRALIA)

Duffy v Google LLC is a landmark case where it established the liability of Google LLC for its search engine as a secondary publisher of defamatory content. In this case, defamation is proven.

The facts are that Dr Duffy had reached out to Google to take down & to not display links to RipOffReports on their search engines when her name is being searched for. RipOffReport is a consumer review forum where false allegations were made which significantly damaged her reputation. Duffy reached out to Google but Google refused to take down the links.

The Supreme Court of South Australia found that Google is held liable as a secondary publisher of defamatory material when it failed to remove links after being notified. The court ruled that the search results, which included snippets and hyperlinks to defamatory content, were considered publications by Google. When the company was notified but refused to take action, it became liable for the continued dissemination of the defamatory material.

Google’s defence of innocent dissemination, qualified privilege, and truth were rejected by the court. The court concluded that Google had sufficient control over the search results to be considered a publisher and that it failed to act responsibly after being informed of the defamatory content.

3)   SUMMARY YUVARANI W/O RAVINDRA V PERCETAKAN KUM SDN BHD & ORS (MALAYSIA)

            Yuvarani is a Malaysian case where the first defendant had successfully discharged the burden on them to establish the defence of innocent dissemination on the reason that they were the printer of the materials contracted by the third defendant publisher to print the monthly magazine, Indian Movie News (IMN).

Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled the first defendant’s involvement as restricted to the mechanical process of printing, binding and packing of the IMN. Therefore, the contents which were alleged by the plaintiff as false and done with malicious and implications of the two defamatory passages were not within its knowledge at all.

Furthermore, the first defendant had no control over or the means to edit the contents of materials published in the issues of the IMN as they were handed the contents of each issue to be printed out within a fairly tight deadline. For that, the court concluded the first defendant has succeeded to persuade the court that they have a valid defence of innocent dissemination.

4)   DIFFERENCE & SIMILARITIES

In the two mentioned cases, the similarities are that both (Google & Percetakan Kum) secondary ‘publisher’ where both did not by their own accord, publish the defamatory content but had played a part in the distribution of the content.

However, a key difference which led to the difference in decision is the control the parties have over the content published. Google LLC was deemed to have sufficient control to filter through their hyperlinks and identify the defamatory content whereas Percetakan Kum had no rights to edit the content which he is commissioned to print and bind. Another contributing factor is the fact that Duffy had requested Google to remove the links multiple times which they have refused to do.

5)   WHAT SHOULD TECH COMPANIES DO

To avoid being a secondary publisher, a tech company must first: identify if their company has control over the content which they distribute.

Then, tech companies need to be proactive in managing their online platforms to avoid defamation issues. How?

1. User Reporting Mechanisms
   1. Provide users with easy ways to report inappropriate or defamatory content.
   2. Act promptly on reports and take appropriate actions.
2.  Legal Compliance
   1. Stay updated on relevant defamation laws and regulations in different jurisdictions.
   2. Ensure compliance with local laws and international standards.
3. Content Review and Verification
   1. Implement measures to verify the accuracy of user-generated content where feasible.
   2. Consider fact-checking or source verification processes for sensitive topics.
4. Legal Consultation
   1. Regularly consult with legal professionals to review and update policies and practices.
   2. Seek legal advice if dealing with potential defamation claims.
5. Transparency
   1.  Be transparent about content moderation practices and decisions.
   2. Publish transparency reports that outline how content issues are handled.

By implementing these measures, tech companies can minimize their risk of defamation issues and handle any problems that arise more effectively.

(Source: https://davisbusinesslaw.com/handling-business-defamation-a-guide-to-protecting-your-companys-reputation/#:~:text=Companies%20should%20proactively%20monitor%20online,orders%2C%20can%20mitigate%20reputational%20damage.)

Marsya Irdina binti Muhazli | Nur Falissa Azra | Legal Interns – Amir Khusyairi & Associates