Google, Reddit and online giants losing defamation cases in Adelaide

AN Adelaide entrepreneur and charity fundraiser has had defamatory comments deleted from the internet, becoming the fourth South Australian to challenge an online giant and win.

Google, Reddit and other online companies have been successfully forced to remove defamatory comments in SA courts.

• Google ordered to pay defamed SA woman $115,000 in damages
• Google told to unmask bloggers who defamed ex-footy player
• GoDaddy.com to help Port sponsor find online troll
• Suspects found, but no arrests over “Adelaide nude girls” website

AN ADELAIDE entrepreneur and charity fundraiser has succeeded in having defamatory comments about him deleted from one of the world’s biggest websites.

Jason Zajarskas, who fundraises for the Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Amnesty International, is the fourth South Australian to take an internet giant to court and win.

The Advertiser can reveal Reddit Inc has obeyed a Supreme Court injunction to take down a controversial post about him and his company, Focus International Marketing.

His success follows academic Dr Janice Duffy and former footballer Shane Radbone, both of whom sued Google, and Athan Lekkas, who sued GoDaddy.com.

Lawyers say the stance taken against online defamation has made SA the national leader in safeguarding reputations from anonymous “trolls” seeking to cause harm.

Ted Guthrie, from Johnston Withers, said websites were being held to the same standard of accountability as newspapers, radio and television broadcasts.

“The fact SA’s courts are prepared to make orders against US-based, global companies indicates a truly progressive approach,”

“This isn’t new law — the courts are simply applying centuries-old defamation law to these entirely new entities and new mediums.

“If you have been defamed then you don’t have to suffer in silence — not in SA.”

Mr Zajarskas and Focus employ people to source donations from pedestrians in public places.

Their clients also include Minda Incorporated, Mission Australia and the Guide Dogs Association.

Last year, Mr Zajarskas filed action against Reddit, an online “bulletin board” with posts about and news generated by its 234 million users worldwide.

He asserted a post entitled “The Truth Behind Focus International” defamed him by falsely asserting poor treatment of workers, improper business practices and drug use.

“There is no truth to any of the imputations ... Focus is a good marketing company and not one to be wary of,” he said in his affidavit.

“Not only does the post greatly damage my personal reputation, I am concerned Focus’ clients will become troubled by them.

“If all (business) agreements were terminated, there is a likelihood that Focus’ business would no longer be viable and would close down.”

He asked Reddit to remove the post, by an anonymous author, but the company refused.

“Reddit would require an order from a US court to remove this content (which) contains user-generated content,” its legal support team said in an August e-mail.

“It’s good to note that many posts on Reddit do not get significant attention, and efforts to delete content may have the affect of heightening its visibility.”

Mr Zajarskas subsequently sought, and was granted, a SA Supreme Court injunction ordering Reddit to remove the content.

Last week, the court was told Reddit had complied with the order and the parties were negotiating a settlement of their remaining issues.

Yesterday, Mr Guthrie said the anonymity of online commentators was the central problem facing victims of online defamation.

“However, companies like Google and Reddit consider themselves good global corporate citizens and so are more likely to comply with orders of a court, even one outside the US,” he said.

Civil claims were therefore more likely to succeed than criminal cases, such as the investigation into the twisted “Adelaide nude girls” website.

Last week, SA Police conceded it could not arrest four people suspected of stealing and uploading images of 400 women because it could not compel US websites to co-operate.

“Those women probably could sue for invasion of privacy, but whether it would lead to any success is a different matter,” Mr Guthrie said.

“They would likely obtain an SA court order but, if the site doesn’t consider itself a good global corporate citizen, it’s unlikely it would actually comply.”

NET WINNERS

DR JANICE DUFFY

In 2010, Dr Duffy, a former SA Health researcher, sued Google after it refused to remove references to her from its patented search engine.

She won her six-year legal battle in October last year when, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled Google had defamed her.

The internet giant was ordered to pay Dr Duffy $115,000 in damages — it has since lodged an appeal against the decision.

SHANE RADBONE

In 2012, the former Sturt and Essendon player asked a court to order Google unmask a user of its then-popular Blogger.com website.

He claimed the anonymous author had defamed him in posts about his post-football career as a businessman and attacked his on-field record.

Google deleted five blogs that mentioned the former footballer and was then given 28 days, by the District Court, to provide Mr Radbone with the identity of their author.

ATHAN LEKKAS

In 2012, Mr Lekkas — director of Soaring Securities, which sponsored the Port Adelaide Football Club — sued GoDaddy.com and SoftLayer Technologies, based in Texas.

He wanted the companies to reveal the identity of a contributor to the site ozripoff.com, who he claimed defamed him in a series of posts.

GoDaddy.com, which had registered and hosted the ozripoff site, consented to a court order and agreed to assist Mr Lekkas.

Follow @SeanFewster