NEWS

Crucial win for search engines – High Court rules in favour of Google

On 17 August 2022, the High Court of Australia determined that Google was not liable for defamation as a publisher by making available to users a hyperlinked article searching and seeking to navigate the internet using its search engine which could lead users to defamatory material (Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27).

Background

The respondent lawyer, who specialises in high profile criminal law cases, sued Google for defamation as a publisher after Google refused to remove a hyperlink to an alleged defamatory newspaper article. Google denied being a publisher.

The Victorian Supreme Court at first instance, and Victorian Court of Appeal (Defteros v Google LLC [2021] VSCA 167), found in favour of the respondent finding that Google effectively ‘incorporated … the content’ of the article by generating a link to the story and was thereby assisting in publishing/communicating the defamatory material as a secondary publisher.

High Court of Australia

Google appealed to the High Court. The question for the High Court was whether Google’s search results directing a user to the webpage of another could constitute participation in the communication of a defamatory matter.[1]

The High Court stated that ‘a hyperlink is merely a tool that enables a person to navigate to another webpage’[2].

The High Court, in a 5-2 majority, effectively held that Google facilitating or assisting[3] a person’s access to the contents of another’s webpage is not participating in the bilateral process of communicating its contents[4].

Justices Keane and Gordon, in the minority, found  Google to be a publisher for reasons including that whilst ‘Google does not contribute to the content of the works which its search engine disseminates, it’s search engine facilitates access to those works[5] and it is ‘sufficient communication of the content of the work of the primary publisher [be it defamatory in nature] to the user of Google’s search engine.’[6]

Justice Gordon said ‘Google’s attempt to portray itself as passive has an air of unreality and it [Google] cannot deny that it is involved in the publication of those news articles.’

 

[1] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [24]

[2] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [52]

[3] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [219]

[4] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [53]

[5] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [100]

[6] Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 [104]

 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Related News

Doyles Guide Leading Class Action Lawyers, Australia 2026

William Roberts are proud to announce that  Bill Petrovski and Ding Pan have been selected as Leading Class Actions Lawyers – Australia, 2026. The 2026

Read More

Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826

Please, Your Honour, May I Have Some More (of my fees)? – Lessons from Bremner v French (No 6) [2026] NSWSC 826 Justice Parker’s decision

Read More

Zamagias v Saltalamacchia [2026] NSWCA 48: A Lesson on the Value of Contemporaneous Evidence

In a decision handed down by the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 2 April 2026, Justice Adamson with President Ward and Justice Free

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

PO Box 20424, World Square NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 7,

171 La Trobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

 

PO Box 13171, Law Courts VIC 8010

Brisbane

Level 9
193 North Quay
BRISBANE QLD 4000

 

PO Box 12170, George Street QLD 4003

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623