Gold Coast entrepreneur wins case against Google Australia over insulting website

Gold Coast entrepreneur Jamie McIntyre says a ruling forcing Google Australia to reveal who is behind an allegedly defamatory website is a “landmark case for the benefit of the internet.”

But search engine optimisation firms are less sure, saying the case will only capture sites that have an advertising relationship with Google, and question whether the information held by Google would enough to identify its author/s.

McIntyre, chief executive of 21st Century Education, reportedly won an action against Google Australia in the Brisbane Supreme Court this week, with the search engine giant ordered within 27 days to release details of the author behind an allegedly defamatory website – information gathered through its advertising relationship with the site under discussion. This information will then likely be used for legal action against the author/s.

On his own website, Jamie McIntyre – who describes himself as an ‘educator, author, mentor’ – says he initiated the case when “exhaustive efforts to find the creators of a blatantly defamatory site were unsuccessful.”

McIntyre founded Century Group in the late 1990s, and now calls it a “multimillion-dollar educational organisation, having grown to include 21st Century Academy, 21st Century Eminis, 21st Century Property Direct, 21st Century Education, as well as 21st Century Services – covering Finance, Investment, Broking, Accountancy and Insurance.”

But Jim Stewart, chief executive of search engine optimisation firm Stewart Media, says the ruling is “very odd”.

Stewart points out that it’s possible that Google might only have an email address, a postal address or a mobile phone number for the author/s of the site.

“The implications for people in search and reputation management are minimal for this, unless the person who has the website that is defaming has Google Ads on it,” Stewart says. “If it doesn’t and the site is registered anonymously and the site is hosted overseas, there’s limited flow-on.”

He adds that the offending site is still in Google’s results, although elements have been removed from the index.

“In theory there can be infinite addresses so the content can stay out there. And what can happen with something like this is it will get other people talking about it.”

Miriam Stiel, partner in the intellectual property practice group at Allens Arthur Robinson, says the court must have been satisfied that Google had some information it could reveal, but ordinarily information would sought from an internet service provider rather than the search engine.

“The difference here is it happens to be Google and they apparently have a relationship with the person,” Stiel says, adding it’s not clear how hotly contested the case was by Google.

Speaking in an address on the Google-owned video sharing site YouTube, McIntyre said “for too long now, people have been able to slander people on the internet.”

“And I know so many people’s careers or lives … from schoolkids to sports stars to everyday people who have had their careers destroyed by anonymous people slandering and defaming someone on the internet.”

“I’m all for freedom of speech and I think that this is a great victory for freedom of speech because it means that people can say whatever they want on the internet as long as it’s based on facts and as long as people are held accountable.”

“And I think that is only good for the internet, so I’m excited for the success in this case that hopefully sets a precedent and enables a lot fairer internet where people are accountable for the comments they make.”

“As well as being a great outcome for me, it’s also a positive result for anyone else who has also been the victim of online defamation and proves this kind if blatant defamation is not acceptable in any medium.”