The Federal Court has ruled that Google must remove automatic search suggestions if they violate individual rights. Once the search engine has been informed of such a violation of the law, he is obliged to prevent them for the future. Thus, the Court has given a plaintiff law, who saw himself injured by the automatic addition of his name to two terms in his personality rights. The Supreme Court has therefore referred the case back to the appeals court.
In the specific case, the plaintiff felt by the automatic completion of his name to the concepts of “Scientology” and “fraud” violated his rights. He claims to be neither any connection with Scientology, yet it criticizes him a fraud. It also ask any of the search results such forth. Google, however, had argued that the search suggestions without judgment reflect the current search preferences in the network. In this view, the search engine company in 2012 had been given before the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, nor right.
The wife of former German president defends himself against Google search suggestions. class=”source”> Image: Screenshot In a related matter Bettina Wulff had also sued Google in September. She struggles against the fact that the search engine when you type their name this automatically replaced by terms such as “escort”. My method was moved in April to await the decision of the Federal Court.
The Supreme Court, however, stressed that not follow from the considerations about the violation of personal rights by Autocomplete that Google is liable for any personality rights affected by search suggestions. “The defendant [Google, ed] is namely not to blame, that it has a search suggestions be elaborated software developed and used, but only that it has not taken sufficient precautions to prevent the data generated by the software Search suggestions violate third-party rights. “
I’m an interested party the operator of an Internet search engine with search word completion function to enjoin infringing supplement personality in terms entering the name of the person concerned in the claim, the liability of the operator put the injury reasonably requires inspection duties, the Supreme Court holds. “The operator of a search engine is not regularly required to verify the generated by a software search addenda general advance for possible breaches., The operator is in principle only responsible if it becomes aware of the unlawful violation of the personal rights.”[Update 14.05.2013 11:55]:
In a first opinion, Google spokesman Kay Oberbeck was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision. Indeed gratifying was that “the Court considers that autocomplete and Google admissible under no obligation to consider any term displayed in advance.” Could not understand Google but the view of the Supreme Court that “Google for the input of users search terms yet to be liable. Because in the auto completion is automatically displayed terms that Google users have searched., The written verdict remains to be seen.” To what extent Google now responds to the technical or organizational decision Oberbeck left open.Refer to the legal battles around the Google search suggestions to:
(mho) / (jk)