Google Can Be Liable In Defamation Law As A 'Publisher' Of Defamatory Words On Blogger.com

Tamiz v Google Inc ([2013] EWCA Civ 68)

Mr Tamiz sued Google Inc and Google UK Ltd over 8 comments which had been posted on blog called 'London Muslim' which was hosted on Blogger.com, operated by Google Inc. He had notified Google of his objections to the comments. Google had contacted the author of the Blog who voluntarily deleted the comments. It took just over 5 weeks for the comments to be removed, and he decided to sue in relation the period after Google Inc had received his objection, but before they were taken down. (He subsequently settled his claim against Google UK Ltd, having been informed that it had no responsibility for Blogger.com.)

The first instance decisions

He had to obtain permission from the Court to serve his claim on Google Inc in California. A High Court Master had given Mr Tamiz permission, and Google Inc then tried to get that set aside, in an application to Mr Justice Eady. Eady J found for Google Inc on 3 grounds:

1. Google Inc has a "passive" role in relation to Blogger.com and hence was not a "publisher" for the purposes of the law of defamation, either before or after receiving notification of a complaint;

2. Google Inc would have a cast-iron defence to the claim e.g. under s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996

3. Even if the above was wrong, the 5 week period over which Mr Tamiz was suing (i.e. the time the comments had remained on the blog after Google Inc received his initial objection) was so short that any potential liability that arose was too trivial to justify a High Court libel action.

Mr Tamiz then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal Judgment

On the specific facts of the case, Mr Tamiz lost on ground 3. - the Court of Appeal agreed with Eady J that on the facts, the case was too 'trivial' to be allowed to proceed (following the key House of Lords case of Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 75 ). The Court found it was "highly improbable" that a significant number of people would have read the comments in question in the period between notification and removal, and hence any reputational damage during the relevant period must have been so trivial that "the game would not be worth the candle".

However, the significant aspect of the Court of Appeal's decision (for people other than the unfortunate Mr Tamiz) was that it disagreed with Eady J on grounds 1. and 2.

The Court ruled that Google Inc as the operator of the blogging platform Blogger.com was arguably a...