Explore

The president of the Make a Wish Foundation in Argentina sought a preliminary injunction against Google for the removal of a defamatory blog post and other websites that republished it. The Court affirmed the judgment denying the injunction. According to the decision, the allegedly defamatory content was a matter of public concern because it pertained to the foundation’s fundraising activities and management of donations, and plaintiff had failed to prove falsity as part of her prima facie case. The Court held that it would be unreasonable to enter a preliminary injunction against Google, requiring deindexing of the blog, when the owner of the blog could have contested plaintiff’s allegations had he been named defendant to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff requested the blocking of any link to web sites in which photographs obtained from her Facebook account were published. This request was related to the news regarding the death of Alberto Nisman, an Argentine prosecutor. The Court rejected the request. First, according to the Court, the "highest disclosure of public information" principle prevailed as it was a case of public interest. There was a general interest to have access to this information. Second, the Court stated that Facebook's main objective consisted in sharing images and events. Consequently, limits to privacy had to be cautiously determined, especially when images relate to a case of public interest.

This case is one among numerous civil lawsuits brought against the search engines Google and Yahoo! by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacy. The Court held that preliminary injunctions are capable of determining whether certain content is ‘prima facie’ unlawful when they identify specific infringing content, as opposed to being issued in general terms (see “Albertario”). Accordingly, intermediaries are deemed to have actual knowledge of the infringing content specified in the preliminary injunction upon notice.

This case is one among numerous civil lawsuits brought against the search engines Google and Yahoo! by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacy. Similar to “Giovanetti”, the Court stated that a generic preliminary injunction ordering the removal of allegedly infringing content is not sufficient to make a search engine liable. However, in this case, the Court observed that although the lower judge’s order was too broad, the plaintiff had presented documentary evidence that contained a list specifying the infringing websites in issue. Thus, the Court concluded, Google had actual knowledge of the unlawful content and was liable for its failure to promptly remove it.

As a general rule, it proposes that “connection and content search services providers” should not be responsible for monitoring or controlling content hosted in a third-party site. Such providers are not liable for any damages originated by that content, unless they are duly notified and refuse to remove it. Moreover, “connection and content search services providers" should remove any links to specific content hosted by third parties when it is “flagrant illegal content”: content that facilitate or incite the commission of a crime; child pornography; content that may put lives or physical integrity in danger; or incitement to genocide, racism, or discrimination or violence incitement; content that damage an individual’s honor, intimacy or image; or content that may compromise a judicial investigation in process. The...

Dr. Sagües, President of the San Isidro Bar Association, sued Google for damages and sought a preliminary injunction for the removal of two allegedly defamatory blogs. A preliminary injunction was entered by the judge of the lower court compelling Google to remove from its search results the content related to plaintiff. After “Rodríguez”, the Court of Appeals reviewed and modified the terms of the preliminary injunction on the grounds that it was too broad, effectively imposing an obligation to actively monitor content. Thus, it was the plaintiff’s burden to put the search engine on notice of the infringing content by reporting individualized URLs. After the final judgment, on appeal, the majority held that Google was not liable because it had complied with the modified preliminary injunction by blocking specific...