For those following Google-related litigation, the English Court of Appeal has handed down an interesting decision in Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (14 February 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/68.html . Unlike the recent HCA decision, this one was on defamation- could Google be liable for defamatory comments made on a blog which it "hosted"? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer was, Yes, in some circumstances. The trial decision dismissing the case as unarguable (by Eady J) was reversed on two points by the three-member bench led by the Master of the Rolls. While still at a preliminary stage, the CA followed the old 1937 decision of Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 (club found potentially liable for defamatory comments posted on notice board by member) to say that Google, once it had been told about the defamatory comments by the plaintiff, and given a "reasonable time" to take them down, were arguable then liable as publisher- see [35]-[36]. Nor did a statutory "innocent dissemination" defence apply once Google had been notified of the claim that the comments were defamatory. 

In the circumstances, however, the CA upheld Eady J's decision that the damage was so "trivial" (the comments were taken down a few weeks after Google were notified) that the litigation was an abuse of process- that is, any possible award of damages was likely to be so small that litigation (especially involving service out of the jurisdiction, as Google in the US had to be sued) was "not worth the candle". The permission to serve outside the jurisdiction was revoked.

Still, I am sure the judgment leaves a lot for Google to be concerned about, and I would suspect they would be keen to appeal.

Regards

Neil