Google loses appeal over $40,000 payout to defamed lawyer

Court of Appeal rejects tech giant’s attempt to quash a massive fine for maintaining search results to defamatory article.

Lawyer George Defteros outside his office in Melbourne. Picture: Stuart McEvoy.

A Melbourne criminal lawyer who took on Google has said he feels “vindicated” after the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld his win against the giant over links to a defamatory article, knocking back Google’s attempt to quash the $40,000 payout.

Criminal lawyer George Defteros launched proceedings against Google in 2016 with a follow-up case in 2017 alleging the company was a publisher of the content that connected him to Melbourne crime figures with his client list including Alphonse Gangitano, Mario Condello and Mick Gatto.

The Supreme Court trial judge upheld his 2016 claim, finding the web content about Mr Defteros’ arrest on conspiracy to murder charges – which were dropped – conveyed the defamatory imputation that Mr Defteros had crossed the line from professional lawyer for, to confidant and friend of, criminal elements.

The judge concluded that Google was a publisher of the search results returned to a user who enters a search query, after Google has ‘notice of particular search results’.

Google appealed the judgment, claiming Justice Melinda Richards erred in finding Google had published the content and in rejecting a defence of innocent dissemination at common law and under the Defamation Act.

Google also claimed Justice Richards erred in rejecting Google’s common law and statutory qualified privilege defence.

Mr Defteros made a cross-application for leave to appeal on costs, seeking costs to be paid by Google on an indemnity basis and also appealing the dismissal of the 2017 proceeding.

In a statement Mr Defteros said the key point of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that Google was found to be a publisher of defamatory material contained in search results that included a hyperlink after Google has been notified of the defamatory content.

“The Court has clearly stated that the notification given by me was sufficient to invest in Google knowledge of the particular publication complained of and the fact that it was, as I had asserted from the outset, defamatory of me,” he said.

“I feel vindicated, as this is an important point of principle and I am pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision today.”

Court of Appeal justices David Beach, Stephen Kaye and Richard Niall found the search result was “an enticement” to the reader to click on the hyperlink to obtain more information about Mr Defteros when it published the words “Underworld loses valued friend at court”, “SpecialsGanglandKillings”, “Crime & Corruption” and “Pub bouncer-turned-criminal lawyer George Defteros always prided himself on being able to avoid a king hit — The Age Online”.

“It is correct to say that the search result containing the hyperlink to the Underworld article incorporated (without repeating any of its text in the search result) the content of the Underworld article,” they found.

“In the present case, the searcher only had to click on the hyperlink to access the Underworld article — the search result containing the words to which we have already referred, which words have a close connection to the parts of the Underworld article dealing with Mr Defteros.”

The court granted both parties leave to appeal but dismissed the appeals.