Whether the plaintiff defamed another business or not is not the subject of this case. The case is about Google continuing to publish defamatory statements generated from “Rip off Reports” content despite being forced to comply with the request in 2011.
Now I do agree the plaintiff can also be sued for damages by the psychic company for defamation.
That’s my take on this. I do agree the premise of the case is odd. The in depth case review doesn’t seem to mention if she actually went through the process of having the primary publisher (Rip-off reports) remove the defamatory information.
Now I do agree the plaintiff can also be sued for damages by the psychic company for defamation.
That’s my take on this. I do agree the premise of the case is odd. The in depth case review doesn’t seem to mention if she actually went through the process of having the primary publisher (Rip-off reports) remove the defamatory information.