Explore

The lower court had entered an injunction ordering Google and Yahoo to remove all links and images related to plaintiff, a model who appeared in some photographs that initially surfaced on social media where she appeared next to a federal prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, whose highly publicized death was under criminal investigation. The Court acknowledged an overriding public interest in the information and the images at issue. The fundamental rights to freedom of expression and access to information, under these circumstances, outweighed the right to privacy and publicity. Moreover, the Court recognized that some of the URLs identified by the plaintiff belonged to journalistic media. Then, according to the decision, the plaintiff should have sued those sufficiently identified media outlets instead of the defendant search...

This legislation would codify responsibility of intermediaries for content posted by users. It defines ISPs; access, interconnection, transmission and data addressing providers; automatic storage or cache services providers; hosting providers; link, search and content or information directories services providers; and content. The proposal states that providers should not be liable for the transmitted information, unless they originally transmitted it or modified it, or have effective knowledge of the illegality of the content. The proposal also determines that it cannot limit the capacity of ISPs to contract with its users on their own terms and conditions (“self-regulation”) including provisions for alternative mechanisms for notification, removal, interruption, blocking, or management of offending content. However...

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.