Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Google LLC
[2023] EWHC 1958 (KB)
GovData Limited v Indeed UK Operations Limited
12 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 39 (Comm)
High Court
A company sued a website to find out who anonymously posted bad reviews. The judge said the company didn't have a strong enough case to reveal the reviewers' identities, because their right to post anonymously was more important than the company's weak claims.
Key Facts
- •GovData Limited (Claimant) sought a Norwich Pharmacal order against Indeed UK Operations Limited (Defendant) to identify anonymous reviewers who posted critical comments on Indeed's website.
- •The Claimant alleged that the reviews contained defamatory and/or malicious falsehood statements.
- •The Claimant initially brought the claim without joining its CEO and COO as claimants, later seeking to amend the claim to add them.
- •Four specific reviews were identified, with the Claimant also referring to other deleted reviews.
- •The Claimant argued various potential causes of action beyond defamation and malicious falsehood, including harassment, assault, and breach of contract.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal orders are granted when: (i) a wrong has been carried out; (ii) an order is needed to bring action; (iii) the respondent facilitated the wrong and can provide necessary information.
Mitsui & Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum Ltd [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch)
In granting Norwich Pharmacal orders, the court considers factors including the strength of the cause of action, public interest, availability of information from other sources, respondent's knowledge, potential harm to innocent parties, confidentiality, privacy rights, and the public interest in protecting journalistic sources.
Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd [2012] UKSC 55
When a Norwich Pharmacal order is sought to unmask an anonymous online poster, the court balances Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights. The applicant must demonstrate a claim with a real prospect of success, outweighing the target's rights.
Davidoff v Google [2023] EWHC 1958
To obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order in this context, the claimant must show, at a minimum, a claim with a real prospect of success using the Swain v Hillman test.
Davidoff v Google [2023] EWHC 1958
Defamation requires a false statement referring to the claimant, published by the target, which lowers the claimant's reputation and causes serious harm. Malicious falsehood requires a false statement published maliciously, causing special damage.
Davidoff v Google [2023] EWHC 1958
The one-year limitation period for defamation and malicious falsehood claims can be disapplied exceptionally under Section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980.
Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1411
Outcomes
The application to amend the claim form to add the CEO and COO as claimants was refused.
Adding them would not strengthen the case, as the judge found the underlying claim weak.
The Claimant's application for a Norwich Pharmacal order was refused.
The judge found the claims against the anonymous reviewers to be weak, particularly given the time limitations and lack of evidence of serious harm. The court balanced the interests of the reviewers' anonymity against the Claimant's desire to pursue potentially weak claims and found the balance favored protecting anonymity.