Despite Tony Blair pushing through changes to allow corporate bodies to use defamation laws, it's still pretty rare and an uphill struggle. The McLibel case showed how dangerous it is for a company to resort to that sort of litigation.
They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any.
They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand.
Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not generally help you much.
I thought that companies were legal persons in English law? And if they can prove actual damages then they can sue for libel? As always IANAL
I'd agree that McLibel didn't play out that well for them - however here we're talking one massive company vs another. McLibel was not even close to the same thing as e.g. Google vs. the MPAA would be.
Anyway my main point was laws already exist to protect companies from malicious communications.
Hollywood is not in the UK. In the US, true statements are not defamation. There is plenty of damage Hollywood could do to Google purely by telling the truth.
Well in the UK true statements are not defamation either (as of a change in legislation last year).
My point is more that if Hollywood were lying about Google then Google would have legal recourse. If they are not then Google will just have to suck it up.
They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any.
They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand.
Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not generally help you much.