Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeswin | Hacker News Reader

Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.

He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.

For libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category.

Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake.

> Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake.

A reasonable person would realize which part was a mistake: that it's a picture of the serial killer, or that the serial killer died in the 80s?

Falsely claiming that someone committed a serious crime is per se defamation in many jurisdictions. There is no need to prove actual damage. It is damaging by definition.

Easy to provide when will be detained at random airport for 10 hours until the authorities will triple-check all the info until everybody and the janitor will be satisfied. People has been stopped to take their fly for much less.

I don't think it matters whether they fix it or not. Evidence help with establishing the severity, but in most countries this sort of thing would be classed as defamation of character. This guy should be entitled to something and ought to sue regardless.

Figuring out or demonstrating the "Quantifiably injurious" part might be very hard https://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamat...

Might not be necessary. Many jurisdictions recognize certain types of claims, including accusations of serious crime, as defamation per se; no specific proof of harm is required.

Right to be forgotten would be much easier to invoke.

Suing in Bulgaria is likely to end up nowhere with Bulgaria having the worst courts in the EU (a primary reason not being in Schengen)

this is google we're talking about. so good luck with that.

It's disturbing how often people infer that Google is impervious to the law.

That would req. showing that law was broken. I don't think in this case it was. More like a mistake.

If Google refused to fix it, it might be different. But I expect that, if someone were to file a suit, not even trying to get it fixed wouldn't be seen as acting in good faith.

Does every person who is impacted by this kind of thing have the responsibility to do Google's QC for them? What about people who never notice it? Maybe a lawsuit would be hopeless, but it sure would be nice to see some kind of real consequences here.

How do you even contact Google about an issue like this in the first place? My only communication with Google in the capacity of a user has been automated messages.

Meanwhile sending an email to Google asking for something to be fixed, could be seen as an act of insanity.

Mistakes can be illegal. Intent only matters for small subset of laws.

It's surprisingly easy, just time-involved, to sue large corporations in small claims, at least in some jurisdictions. Yes, they've got lawyers, but if you have a case you may still win. I sued one of the largest telecoms in Canada for not honouring a verbal contract, and won quite easily once I proved the facts in dispute. Businesses assume people won't have the commitment to carry through and actually take them to court over malfeasance. Probably mostly correctly. I'm not sure it was really worth the hassle.

Google is not a typical large corp though. They will spend millions on top lawyers for even small cases even if settling costs far less, just to make a point that they do not lose. If a company shows a willingness to settle or they they lose easily, then that makes them vulnerable to future litigation. Contingency lawyers will not take on companies that do not lose or settle.

And you know this because?

I don't agree with the parent's way to put it, however, there is at least some truth.

There as been an interesting case - Aaron Greenspan vs Google: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2.... It's a very interesting and even entertaining read.

You're replying to a comment that says "in small claims" and lawyers don't appear in small claims court. Though I don't know about winning vs Google there, just that it's worked against Uber.

I should have probably have noted that in most places, slander is not handled in small claims anyway. And lawyers can and do appear in small claims. If you sue a larger company, large enough to have a legal department, then someone from their legal department will probably show up to defend. You can consult or bring your own lawyer, too. A well-designed small claims court system keeps matters of law questions to a minimum, which usually makes it straightforward enough you can't drown it in paperwork. Here, there's a limit on how much you can spend on costs, for example. So no massive team of lawyers seeking depositions and hired expert witnesses. And as always, if it gets appealed, then who knows?

Out of curiosity...how did you prove a verbal contract? Recordings? 3rd person present as witness? Protocol from the verbal contract mailed to yourself?

I had a recording of the call.

I actually had a similar case with AT&T, except they went back and listened to their recording of the call and confirmed the promise. No need to sue.

Wow that seems like a first, for once, finally, additional collected information was used to absolve someone. You are a lucky guy :D

Oh, it took some persistence and definitely wasn't a short process.

But damn was it satisfying.

I just looked it up and google does have a workflow that allows you to send them a court order.

Let's start there first before issuing a lawsuit. You only sue if you can prove damages for defamation. Which, as tepid as most people are on here about patent trolls, I can't imaging taking on google. It's literally like taking on god at this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com