Google Found Liable For Autocomplete Suggestions In Italy

from the oh-come-on dept

Tue, Apr 5th 2011 1:07pm — Mike Masnick

Here's yet another ridiculously bad ruling for search engines in Italy. Glyn Moody points us to the news of a blog post by a lawyer involved in the case (against Google) who is happy that his side prevailed and that Google is liable for search autocomplete suggestions. The case involved someone who was upset that doing a Google search on his name popped up "con man" ("truffatore") and "fraud" ("truffa") as autocomplete Google search suggestions. We've seen similar cases elsewhere, and France has (most of the time) also ruled against Google.

Of course, this is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. Google is not "creating" this content. It's accurately suggesting results based on what users are searching. Clearly, people are searching on this particular individual along with the two terms. That's not Google's fault. Yet Google is liable for it?

One interesting footnote: a part of the reason why the court ruled the way it did was because the court noted that Google already edited autocomplete suggestions for issues related to copyright infringement. Funny. That's exactly the issue we warned about when Google made the silly decision (following pressure from the US government) to start blocking certain keywords from autocomplete. The court seems to see this as proof that Google can and should be responsible for the content in that autocomplete box... Once again, it looks like the company would have been better off not meddling.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: autocomplete, defamation, italy, liability, search
Companies: google

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:14pm

no good deed goes unpunished

how many internet users does italy have? it seems italy [gubbermint] doesn't much care for the US-style internet. how much backlash would it get if american tech companies started packing up out of italy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zauber Paracelsus (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:38pm

I never really liked autocomplete much to begin with. Perhaps its better if Google just drops it altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:45pm

Fuuuuuck Italy. Just get out of Italy Google. They obviously have some kind of serious hatred for you, pull the fuck out and see how their citizens like the results of their .gov's action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:49pm

Re:
Your opinion truly is all that matters. I'm glad you've realized that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fernando, 5 Apr 2011 @ 1:57pm

Google to curate autocomplete results
Google's solution is to curate these results. They're hiring now: http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/uslocations/mountain-view/autocompleter/index.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:02pm

Re:
More likely this law was put in under pressure from the U.S.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:40pm

Re: Google to curate autocomplete results
I think the job requirements eliminate most humans.

Typing 32,000 WPM just seems a little fast for most keyboards to survive until lunch time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wulfman (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:45pm

Italy
I run an IRC server and 99.99% of ALL .IT users come on to IRC channels to "lista" looking for fileservers for illegal content provided by people. They IMHO the WORST offenders on stealing content LMAO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:53pm

Re: Italy
Rizon, I take it? That's the first IRC server that I can think of that has a large filesharing base in it. Most channels actively ban people using the list function.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wulfman (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Italy
Nope. but we disabled list functions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joseph, 5 Apr 2011 @ 7:35pm

Autocomplete Masnick
In Google I typed Mike Masnick

The autocomplete said:

Mike Masnick nine inch nails

Better get a manicure Mike, Google is calling you out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 5 Apr 2011 @ 10:40pm

Re:
You realise you can turn it off if you want, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Oizo, 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:23am

It's not accurate
Quote: It's accurately suggesting results based on what users are searching.

This is wrong. It has merely to do what data is in the vicinity in google's graph. That has not necessarily to do with that what users search. E.g: Have a look at http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bbf5f39f-12c5-4bf9-a8da-0f27892c3e56.jpg or the more generic http://failblog.org/tag/autocomplete-me/

Nobody searches these things. These are parts of sentences and they are merely associated with each other somehow and then placed behind each other. So it is inaccurate to state that google accuratley predicts that what people search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:20am

ruh roh

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/google-said-to-be-possible-target-of-antitrust-probe -after-ita-acquisition.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 8:45am

Re: It's not accurate
"""Quote: It's accurately suggesting results based on what users are searching.

...So it is inaccurate to state that google accuratley predicts that what people search."""

Perhaps I'm missing something. Please point out where anyone said that Google is predicting what people will search on?

However I hope that you're not trying to suggest that Google doesn't "accuratley" know what people *are* searching on when they use Google, because I don't want my brain to 'splode this early in the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 8:53am

Re:
While laced with a little more profanity than possibly necessary, I totally agree with your sentiment.

Google, get out of there now, and don't go back till they beg you AND promise full immunity to stupid lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Oizo, 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: It's not accurate
The quote was from the Masnicks writing; second paragraph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: It's not accurate
They are all searches someone has done in the past. That is why that site you listed is funny, because you ask yourself who the fuck was searching for these things.

From googles own site explaining autocomplete:
"*All of the predicted queries shown have been typed previously by Google users.* The autocomplete dataset is updated frequently to offer fresh and rising search queries"

They are not "parts of sentences and they are merely associated with each other somehow and then placed behind each other" they actually are things people have typed into their search bar.

source for quote: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=106230
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: It's not accurate
I see. So in your mind, the word "suggests" is the same as the word "predicts". In my mind, those two words have very different meanings, especially in the current context. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:55pm

Re: Re:
[citation needed]

Without proof, you're just going to have to face facts that people are stupid elsewhere too
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Oizo, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not accurate
How would you then 'suggest' something accurately ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]