Wie der
High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division in Großbritannien entschieden hat, ist Google nicht als „publisher“ von beleidigenden Snippets anzusehen. Der Kläger hatte von Google nicht nur verlangt, URL’s aus der Trefferliste zu entfernen, die zu Seiten mit rechtswidrigen Kommentaren über ihn führten (die aus den Snippets bereits ersichtlich waren), sondern auch andere nicht spezifizierte URLs zu blockieren, bei denen ansonsten ebenfalls verletzende Snippets erscheinen könnten.
Das Urteil ist ein klarer Sieg von Google in Großbritannien, wenn auch noch eine große Grauzone verbleibt. Der Richter stellte fest, dass Google auf Beschwerden bzgl. konkreter URL’s reagiere und diese blockiert habe. Damit ist aber nicht gesagt, ob Google eine derartige Pflicht trifft oder nicht. Auch ist nicht klar, wie schnell Google reagieren müsste, um einer Haftung zu entgehen. Das Gericht stellte „lediglich“ fest, dass eine darüber hinausgehende Pflicht von Google nicht besteht, also nicht mittels Filter versucht werden muss, weitere Adresse, die nicht genau bezeichnet sind, zu blockieren: "I am told that [Google Inc.] needs to have specific URLs identified and is not in a position to put in place a more effective block on the specific words complained of without, at the same time, blocking a huge amount of other material which might contain some of the individual words comprising the offending snippet... It may well be that [Google Inc.'s] 'notice and take down' procedure has not operated as rapidly as [MIS] would wish, but it does not follow as a matter of law that between notification and 'take down' [Google] becomes or remains liable as a publisher of the offending material ... While efforts are being made to achieve a 'take down' in relation to a particular URL, it is hardly possible to fix [Google Inc.] with liability on the basis of authorisation, approval or acquiescence."
Die URL’s wurden von Google übrigens nur auf der .co.uk-Seite blockiert, nicht unter .com. Der Richter ging hierauf allerdings nicht näher ein.
Positiv hervorzuheben sind die Anmerkungen im Urteil, die klar auf die primäre Verantwortlichkeit der Content Provider abzielen und eine einstweilige Verfügung gegen eine Suchmaschine dagegen als „hopelessly inadequate subsitute“ bezeichnen.
Was die Entscheidung besonders lesenswert macht, sind die Ausführung zur Haftung von Suchmaschinen in anderen Ländern und dort insbesondere zu mehr oder weniger aktuellen Entscheidungen, die bislang kaum Aufmerksamkeit gefunden haben. Die diesbzgl. Ausführungen des Gerichts finden sich im Anschluss. Ich werde diese Aspekte später noch einmal ausführlicher in den News aufgreifen. Ebenso die gesetzlichen Regelungen in Bulgarien und Rumänien
Urteil aus Spanien vom 13.5.2009, Palomo v. Google
"This was a recent case in the Court of First Instance in Madrid on 13 May 2009: Palomo v Google Inc. The complaint was in relation to search results providing hyperlinks to sites carrying defamatory content. The claim was rejected and the Third Defendant held not liable in law for disseminating third party content. Reference was made to European legislation moving towards the position that there should not be any obligation on Internet intermediaries to supervise such content. Where "actual knowledge" (in the sense defined above) has not been established, the law provides for "exoneration from responsibility" on the part of businesses offering intermediary services."
Bulgarien und Rumänien haben explizite Regelungen zur Suchmaschinenhaftung getroffen
"Bulgaria enacted an Electronic Commerce Act in December 2006 which provides that an automated search engine service shall not be liable for the contents of data obtained where it has not (i) initiated the transmission of the data, (ii) chosen the data recipient, or (iii) chosen or altered the data obtained. This corresponds to the provisions of the Austrian amendment, to which I have referred above.
Romania has also extended its law to provide express protection for search engine services in Article 15 of Law No 365 of 7 June 2002, dealing with Electronic Commerce. This provides for protection if the search engine service was not aware that the information in question was illegal, and not aware of any facts or circumstances showing that the information could prejudice the rights of a third party. If it is so aware, it may still be protected if it acts rapidly to eliminate the possibilities of access or to block its use. The search engine service is responsible for the information when a public authority has determined that it is illegal. There are similar limitations on liability to those I have identified with reference to the Spanish law."
Urteil aus Frankreich vom 19.3.2009, SARL Publison System v. Google France
"Another recent example was the French decision (Court of Appeal in Paris, 19 March 2009): SARL Publison System v SARL Google France. The claimant sued over a defamatory "snippet" raised by Google's search engine and a hyperlink to the primary site. It was held that a search engine was not under any duty to assess the lawfulness of the indexed website. To the extent that it involves an indexing robot, and neither creates nor hosts the disputed information, it was said that Google was not under any automatic obligation to carry out monitoring. Furthermore, in view of the considerable volume of information arriving each day on Internet sites, the operator of the search engine was unable to analyse the content made available to users via its indexes."
Urteil aus den Niederlanden vom 26.4.2007, Jensen v. Google
"There was also a Dutch decision in the District Court of Amsterdam on 26 April 2007: Jensen v Google Netherlands. An attempt was made to obtain an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the search results displayed on a search of the claimant's name (since there were a number of sex websites). The court observed that:
"Google has made it sufficiently clear that it has no (preventive) involvement with or influence over the contents of the links to the websites and with or over the contents of the websites which are automatically obtained as search results after entering of, in the case in hand, the search term Jensen + Urmia + Brigitte."
Attention was drawn to the "technical, automatic and passive nature" of the technical processes involved (i.e. of crawling, index-linking and ranking). Google was not expected to accept responsibility for the outcome of a search instruction or the content of the search results. It is to be noted, however, that the court relied in part upon the lack of knowledge on the part of Google that the information was wrongful."
