Google told to pay victim for criminal results

 

Wednesday 31 October 2012 21:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Google was yesterday found liable for damages by a jury in Australia after a man complained that the website's search results had harmed his reputation by wrongly linking him to Melbourne gang crime.

Milorad Trkulja, 62, was shot by a man wearing a balaclava in 2004, though police did not connect the shooting with gangland crime.

However, Mr Trkulja said online searches for his name using Google Images brought up pictures of other people, some of whom he claims are involved in murders and the drug trade, with his name displayed next to them.

Searches also displayed an image of Mr Trkulja accompanied by the caption "Melbourne crime", which he says could have led people to believe he had links to the city's underworld. Mr Trkulja also alleged that Google had refused to amend the links when asked by lawyers acting for him in 2009.

The US-based firm Google put forward a defence of "innocent dissemination", claiming that the searches were a result of automated software. But the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that Google should have removed the content when it received a complaint, and was liable for defamation.

Google did not immediately comment on the verdict, and could appeal. The level of damages is expected to be set within two weeks.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in