Despite Dr Janice Duffy‘s requests for removal, Google continued to host libelous excerpts from the American website RipOff Report on its search engine page. Duffy successfully argued in 2015 and 2023 that Google published defamatory extracts from American website RipOff Report on its search engine page, despite her notifying the company and asking for the posts to be removed.
After 12 years of litigation, during which time an Adelaide lady sued Google twice (mainly without legal representation) and won, the case has finally come to a close.
The confidential settlement she negotiated with the multibillion-dollar firm that would pay her damages and legal bills was supposed to begin on Monday, the day before her damages trial was scheduled to begin.
After she was awarded more than $100,000 in damages in 2015, the firm is paying her again.
According to the ex-South African government researcher, it has never been about the money, but rather about calling Google to account.
“Google made me feel like I was worth nothing,” Dr Duffy stated. “They just made me feel like I was this nothing human being – because I stood up to them.”
Dr Duffy claimed the horror started when she saw false information about herself on the popular website.
“I found it very difficult to leave the house, I used to lay on the couch and watch documentaries about serial killers to make me feel normal,” she said.
During that difficult time, she volunteered with a group dedicated to saving dogs.
“I started it because, basically I wanted someone to look after my dog – if I didn’t survive it and I honestly didn’t think I was going to survive it.”
She said it ruined her research career, and she considered suicide as a solution.
However, prior to her initial trial, when she realized she would have to represent herself with diminishing funds to pay legal expenses, she summoned every ounce of strength she could muster.
“It was just horrific — truly horrific — when I realised I had to do the trial myself… the only things that I had was an old printer and my research skills,” she said.
Despite her David and Goliath–esque victory, similar defamatory content continued to surface on the site following her initial case, in which Google employed the defense of innocent dissemination.
After Dr Duffy’s initial procedure, she was assisted by Paul Heywood-Smith KC.
“[Google] lost the case, but in their arrogance they continued to broadcast it and Janice Duffy wasn’t prepared to accept that.”
Mr Heywood-Smith says her triumphs after fighting the giant mostly unrepresented — are remarkable.
“Google has the capacity to deep pocket anyone –make their legal costs and the costs of litigating so expensive that most people couldn’t even contemplate it,” he said.
The recently retired KC said Dr Duffy’s landmark wins could assist other potential plaintiffs.
“When somebody goes into their solicitor and asks, ‘have I got a case?’ and the solicitor goes to the law on defamation — they will see the case of Duffy against Google and it’s clear cut — and so she’s done a wonderful service.”
Given the time, money, and emotional toll such a trial would entail on potential plaintiffs in Australia, independent expert in technology and law, Joel Lisk, from Flinders University has speculated that there may not be many such proceedings.
“It should be the approach of last resort – you should be able to settle these matters or request Google to remove them – but it does strengthen the defamation position here in Australia.”
He suggests that the Dr Duffy case may require search engine providers to be more vigilant in policing the content of their webpages.
“Following this proceeding, Google will likely look at the judgement and take steps and look at how it manages and produces data – but there’s only so many things you can do without significant technological innovation.”
Leave a Reply