Google on Privacy: Hasty But Reasonable

ArecentIsraelicourtcasehasGoogledivulgingtheidentityofananonymousblogger.TofindouttheimplicationsforUSlawweaskedtwoUSandIsraeliattorneys,DavidMirchinandRussellMayer,fortheiropinionsheresopinioncanbefoundhere.

IsraelicourtshavebeenmuchmoresympathetictoplaintiffswhohaveclaimedthattheyhavebeendefamedovertheInternetinblogs,forumsortalkbacks.GooglesidentityisconsistentwiththetrendinIsraelicasesoverthelastyear.SinceUSdefamationlawissimilarinmajorwaystoIsraelilaw,thesecasesmayindeedbecitedbyUScourtswrestlingwiththeseissues.

Theissuethattypicallyarisesinallthesecases,likeyesterdaysGooglecaseinIsrael,iswhetherananonymousposterwhowritessomescathingdiatribesshouldberequiredtorevealhisidentityandfaceadefamationlawsuit.IntheUS,followingtwocases,NewJerseycaseofDendriteandthe2005DelawareSupremeCourtdecisioninCahill,ittendstobedifficultforplaintiffswhowishtosueanonymousbloggersfordefamation.

IsraelicaseshavecitedDendriteandCahill,buthavecometoadifferentconclusion.Theyhaveruledthatundercertaincircumstancestheidentityofapostercanberevealed.Inthe2006caseofBezekv.JohnDoe,thisoccurredwhereananonymousposterimpersonated31postersallclaimingorsupportingtheclaimthatahighgovernmentofficialwasguiltyofembezzlementandtheidentityofthisofficialsout-of-wedlockchild.Thecourtheldthatyoucouldrevealthepostersnamebecauseitcouldrisetoacriminalclaimofdefamation.

InApril,2007,inthecaseofRamiMorv.Ynet(ThesiteofamajornewspaperandapopularIsraeliportal),thestandardtoreleaseapostersidentitybecameeasier.RamiMor,theplaintiffinthatcasewasapractitionerofalternativemedicine.AnanonymouspostertoanInternetforumhostedbyynetclaimedthatMorwasa“thief”anda“charlatan”.ThecourtdiscussedCahillextensively,andstatedthatinthenormalcase,theanonymouspostersidentitycouldnotberevealed.Thereneededtobean“extraelement”,suchas:

• theplaintiffschancestosucceedintheclaimaregood;


• thetypeofprotectedspeech(politicalspeechismoreprotectedthancommercialspeech);


• theoffensivenessofthespeech;or


• theweightthatareasonablereaderwouldattributetothepublication.

Thecourtheldthatduetotheoffensivenessoftheclaims,andtherepeatedallegations,theanonymouspostershouldnormallyhavehisidentityrevealed.Butbecausethiswasaverynewareaoflaw,thecourtdecidednottoorderthedisclosureofhisidentityinthiscase.

Butthatrestraintdidntlastlong.Justthispastmonth,acourtorderedKeshet,theISP,torevealtheIPaddressofaposterwhoattackedacorrespondentofGlobes,amajorIsraelibusinessnewspaper.

InlightoftheveryrecentIsraelicaselaw,Googlesactionsarenotunreasonable,eventhoughtheypushtheenvelopeyetonemorestepinfavorofdefamationplaintiffs,becauseGoogledidnotevenwaitforacourtordertorevealtheIPaddressoftheblogger.

TheIsraelicaselawhasbeenmuchmoresympathetictodefamationplaintiffsthantheUScases,andhavedivergedfromCahill,andUSdefamationlawintwoimportantrespects:

1.Israelicaseshaveconcludedthatopinions,iftheyareoutrageousenough,frequentenough,anddamagingenough,canformthebasisofdefamationclaims.

2.IsraelicourtshavenotbeendismissiveofblogsandforumsandtalkbacksaswasCahill,whichsaidthattheyarenotdependable.Israelicourtshavesaidthat,whilesomeforumsorblogsmaynothavecredibility,otherscanbehighlycredible-andtherefore,damagingtoplaintiffs.

TheIsraelicaseshaveshownmuchlesstoleranceforanonymouspostersslingingunsubstantiatedclaimsatofficials.Thisisnotnecessarilyabadthing,somaybeUScourtsshoulddosomethingrarelydonelookeastwardtowardIsraelforsomeguidanceontheseissues.

DavidMirchin(dmirchin@meitar.com)istheheadoftheTechnologyandLicensingDepartmentinMeitarLiquornikGeva&LeshemBrandwein.HeisanAdjunctLecturerofInternetande-CommerceLawatTheInterdisciplinaryLawSchool(Herzliya,Israel)andislicensedtopracticeinMassachusetts.