GovData Limited v Indeed UK Operations Limited
[2024] EWHC 39 (Comm)
Richard (Raziel) Davidoff & Ors v Google LLC
28 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1958 (KB)
High Court
A business wanted Google to reveal who wrote bad online reviews. The judge said Google wasn't involved enough in the review writing itself, only in providing email addresses that were used, so they couldn't help.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (ABC Estates and family members) sought Norwich Pharmacal relief against Google to identify individuals who posted negative reviews on Trustpilot.
- •Reviews alleged rudeness, aggression, incompetence, and targeted Richard Davidoff.
- •Claimants previously obtained Norwich Pharmacal order against Trustpilot, identifying email addresses linked to Google Gmail.
- •Claimants alleged defamation and malicious falsehood, but lacked evidence of serious harm or malice.
- •Google did not oppose the application but was not represented at the hearing.
- •Some reviews were linked to the same IP addresses, suggesting a single author using multiple accounts.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal relief requirements: a wrong, need for order to pursue wrongdoer, respondent facilitating wrongdoing and possessing relevant information.
Mitsui & Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd [2005] 3 All ER 511; Collier v Bennett [2020] 4 WLR 116
Defamation Act 2013, s.1: Serious harm requirement for defamation claims; serious financial loss for companies.
Defamation Act 2013, s.1
Malicious falsehood elements: false statement, malice, and special damage.
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524
Balancing competing Convention rights (Article 8 and 10 ECHR) in Norwich Pharmacal applications.
Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Austria (No.3) (Application No. 39378/15); Viagogo factors
Duty of full and frank disclosure on ex parte applications.
Fitzgerald v Williams [1996] QB 657; Memory Corp plc v Sidhu (No.2) [2000] 1 WLR 1443
Respondent's involvement in wrongdoing must be analyzed carefully; mere facilitation insufficient.
NML Capital v Chapman Freeborn Holdings Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 589; EUI Limited v UK Vodaphone Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1771; Hayden v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2022] EWHC 2693 (KB)
Outcomes
Norwich Pharmacal application refused.
Claimants failed to demonstrate a sufficient link between Google's provision of Gmail addresses and the alleged wrongdoing (posting defamatory reviews). Insufficient evidence of serious harm or malice in defamation and malicious falsehood claims. Google was deemed a mere witness, not involved in the furtherance of the wrongdoing.