Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that online search engine service providers can be negligently liable for contents that adversely affect one’s reputation or right to privacy. An Argentinian model brought a civil case against Google and Yahoo, seeking monetary damages for harms she suffered as a result of associating her name and images to websites having sexual and pornographic contents.  She also sought a permanent injunction to  block and remove all thumbnails using her images from the search results. On the basis of international human rights law, the court noted that search engine operators played a pivotal role in promoting the freedom of its users to seek and receive information online.  However, the Court stressed that search engines bore the responsibility for providing access to unauthorized or illegal content. According to the Court, search engine operators are strictly liable for providing access to materials that clearly pose danger or harm to the public, such as child pornography or contents that facilitate or incite crimes. They can further be negligently liable for contents that adversely affect one’s reputation or right to privacy.

Facts

An Argentinian model brought a civil case against Google and Yahoo, seeking monetary damages for harms she suffered as a result of associating her name and images to websites having sexual and pornographic contents.  She also sought a permanent injunction to  block and remove all thumbnails using her images from the search results.

Initially, The court of first instance awarded monetary damages in the amount of Arg$ 100,000 against Google, and Arg$20,000 against Yahoo, and ordered the companies to block and remove all search results associating her images with pornographic websites.

On appeal, the court of second instance partially overturned the decision.  It annuled the judgment against Yahoo and reduced the monetary damages to the total sum of Arg$ 50,000 against Google for its use of the images in the thumbnails without authorization.

Subsequently, both parties appealed the case to Argentina’s National Supreme Court of Justice.

Decision Overview

The Supreme Court of Justice first ruled that online communications are protected under relevant national laws of Argentina.  Pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution, “All inhabitants of the nation enjoy [the right] in publishing their ideas through press without censorship.”  Article 32 prohibits the Federal Congress from enacting “laws that restrict the freedom of press or that substantial federal jurisdiction over it.”  Also, the Court referred to Article 1 of the Federal Law No. 26.032 that recognizes the right to convey ideas, facts, and opinions disseminated through internet.

The Court also made reference to international human rights law decisions recognizing the pivotal role of internet search engine service providers in promoting the freedom of its users to seek and receive information made available on internet.  However, the Court noted  that search engines bear the responsibility for providing access to unauthorized or illegal contents depending on the nature of published information.

According to Court, search engine companies are strictly liable for providing access to materials that clearly pose danger or harm to the public, such as child pornography or contents that facilitate or incite crimes.  In comparison, they are negligently liable for contents that adversely affect one’s reputation or right to privacy.  To recover, the affected individual must show that he or she properly informed the search engines but they failed to act with due diligence in blocking access or removing the contents.

Accordingly, the Court did not find Google and Yahoo strictly liable because the images at issue only adversely affected the plaintiff’s reputation, rather posing harm to the public, and that she could request the images to be removed.  The Court also overturned court of first instance’s judgment ordering Google to monitor specific illegal contents and filter them from its indexes.  It ruled that such order would amount to unjustified censorship.