[astrec]

To add a little colour here, Mr Defteros was previously awarded damages and costs when he sued the authors of the article (and book chapter). Google was notified of the defamatory material in February 2016, but did not remove it until December 2016 after it had been accessed ~150 times.

In this case the court found -- paraphrasing a lengthy judgement here -- that having being notified of the defamatory material, and failing to remove it, Google is a publisher of defamatory imputations. As such damages were awarded.

[htfu]

Thanks for this, seems then things aren't quite as bizarre as the article makes them appear.

Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough.

But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.

[astrec]

> Any more background info?

This was the sixth case, including appeals, relating to this specific matter.

> But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims?

Without wanting to appear too glib, Google also indexes all the judgements! Otherwise, you raise an interesting question which will perhaps be answered in a subsequent appeal.

[htfu]

It would appear judge may want to consider suing ABC to force them have you consult on any further reporting. Thanks for clearing things up.

[XelNika]

> Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued.

That is exactly what the DMCA is and Google does abide by that. This case is about Google's compliance with the law, not whether the law is fair.