Comment by sfg
5 years ago
If their claim is false, then is it, in any jurisdiction, libelous?
Maybe, legislation to bring consequences for false claims will help ensure algorithms, and the support teams that monitor them, do a better job. In an internet focused world, especially one with lock downs, wiping sites off of the internet with false claims is a heinously bad act.
I'm unsure whether it would be ruled libel, but I lean towards yes it would. There are two ways of seeing it:
1) It is a false statement by google themselves (so no §230 protection) that caused material damage and is thus libelous 2) It is an opinion protected under free speech, and the free behavior of a private company, and the words like "may have" show it is not a statement of fact, and "deceptive" is just an opinion.
Yet it feels very wrong and definately Google's fault, and Google should be responsible for the damages, morally speaking.
It's more than just a false statement, the pop-up is keeping users from visiting the website. However, Google doesn't intend to harm these companies in order to gain competitive advantage, it just harms them accidently, so the monopoly argument also has problems.
It seems to me that we need a new law, or that current jurisprudence has let this one slip through and perhaps there will (in America) never be a proper crime for this situation due to divergent jurisprudence in this space that left open this gap.
I would like to know whether it has been tested in court, or if anyone is in process of doing so.
As of today there are no legal protection framework for digital services.
Banking is heavily regulated , you are protected by hundreds if not thousands of laws.
For digital services ? Twitter and Google can legitimately suspend ALL your accounts because you liked a Trump video on YouTube or Tweeted something « Hateful » to Biden.
You can try to go court. You will loose 100% of the time. They are private businesses operating within their own terms, there is not « false » flag or wrong « ban »
They’re private businesses offering a free service, they can cease to offer that at any moment that they want.
In this case they do not provide a service to the OP. There is no agreement between OP and Google.
This is happening on browsers of their customers. And I'm quite sure that if Google hits a company that competes with Google services there must be a law that they will be breaking.
There was a big case in Poland where Google blocked a SaaS web shop provider using the same exact mechanism [0]. Polish courts decided that Google claims displayed on block page were untrue. Unfortunately, the suing company did not receive compensation, because Google Poland does not operate Chrome browser. The court indicated that the right party to sue is Google incorporated in USA...
[0] https://www.silesiasem.pl/iai-przegralo-proces-sadowy-z-goog...
Aside from abusive dominent position there is no law they would break.
When you download and use chrome you ACCEPT the Terms and Conditions of Google.
There is no law that prevents a web browser from blocking access to a website or modifying the page . If the TOS stipulate « pages may differ from the original or be subject to third party software » , they are in within their rights and the customer accepted it when he started using the product.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m on OP sides and everything , but we have let big tech become too big by giving us free stuff for decades.
Now they they decide what’s good for us or not with side effects that often damage small business.
But I insist that in 99% , they operate within the law.
4 replies →
There may be a number of civil causes of action available...
But litigate against a multi-billion dollar tech company? good luck.
These companies are borderline immune to prosecution by the government, much less a small business.
This seems like something the FTC should be looking into, abuse of market position.