About a year ago the Federal Court of Australia heard this matter involving Google.

Rana v Google Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 60 (7 February 2013)

The case is informative in that Google Australia gave sworn evidence to the court about its role and influence on the operations of the Google online businesses.   Here is an extract:

Can the claim against Google Australia be maintained?

1. Google Australia seeks summary judgment dismissing Mr Rana’s claim against it on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of Mr Rana establishing that Google Australia was the publisher of any of the websites above.
2. Mr Rana submits that Google Australia is the owner and operator of the Australian domain name google.com.au “in respect of persons accessing that site from locations in Australia” as well as responsible for “carrying on or participating in the business of Google by, among other things, operating and providing online services including web text searches and web images searches and making available and providing the results of web searches, such services being accessible at or through the Google site.”
3. It is not clear what the basis is for Mr Rana’s submissions other than the fact that the domain name is Australian and that Google Australia is a subsidiary based in Australia. In support of his submissions, Mr Rana relies on the case of  Trkulja  v Google Inc (No 2) [2010] VSC 490. Google Australia had applied for summary judgment. Beach J acknowledged that the allegations that Google Australia owned or operated Google and/or the Google site were untenable, but ordered further and better particulars of the allegations: at [26], in case Google Australia was implicated in some indirect way.
4. Google Australia relies upon the affidavit of its solicitor Susan Goodman, sworn on 21 September 2012. In her affidavit, she states that a search engine enables automated search processes on keywords according to pre-programmed algorithms, to list hyperlinks to webpages in an order determined by assessed relevance. A search engine can be programmed to block a specific webpage. If that occurs, the webpage is still accessible on the internet. Blocking a link will not necessarily result in the suppression of any offensive material, as web page creators can move content from one web page to another: see A v Google New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZHC 2352, [25].
5. In respect of the relationship between Google Inc and Google Australia, Ms Goodman states that she relies upon information given to her by Jenni Aldrich, Regional Counsel of Google Australia. Under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) it is permissible to refer to such material in interlocutory proceedings.
6. Ms Goodman states that:
   • Google Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google International LLC and Google Inc is the ultimate holding company;
   • Google Australia is not authorised to, and has no ability to, control or direct the conduct of Google Inc and is not responsible for the day-to-day operations of Google Inc;
   • Google Inc owns and operates the domains google.com.au and google.com. The search engines at the domains mentioned are exclusively provided by, operated by, and controlled by Google Inc; and
   • Google Australia does not have any ability to control or direct action in respect of blocking URLs from google.com.au.
7. Ms Goodman also states that Google Inc owns and operates the business that supplies the Google Web Search and Google Images products; namely the search interface. Google Inc offers the products on its websites to the public pursuant to written terms of service; which affirms the services are provided by Google Inc, located in the United States of America.
8. Mr Rana has provided no evidentiary support for his assertions that Google Australia is the owner of the relevant search engines, nor that it has any control over its use or management. The evidence of Ms Goodman is not challenged. There is no reason to think it can be answered in any meaningful way by Mr Rana.
9. In A v Google New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZHC 2352, Google New Zealand sought and obtained summary judgment on the basis that it was the wrong defendant, after an application was made against it in respect of defamatory statements accessible through the search engine domain name google.co.nz. In that case the Court concluded that the operation and control of the Google search engine resides with Google Inc and not with Google New Zealand: A v Google New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZHC 2352, [44]. The Court considered that in order to be held liable as a publisher of defamatory material, it must be the case that the defendant “could have prevented the continued publication of the material” or had the ability to bring about the cessation of that material. The Court found that Google New Zealand did not meet this test: at [45].
10. In Tamiz v Google Inc and Google UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 449 (QB) the plaintiff sued in defamation for publications of statements on a blogging platform which formed part of a service provided by Google Inc. Eady J held at [4] that:

Google UK Ltd simply carries on a sales support and marketing business within this jurisdiction. It does not operate or control Blogger.com and therefore has been joined in these proceedings inappropriately. This was explained in a defence served on 8 December 2011. The English company takes no part in the application before me.

1. On the material before the Court, I accept the same reasoning is applicable to Google Australia. There is no reasonable prospect of Mr Rana proving that Google Australia owns the domains in question, or that it has the ability to control or direct the conduct of Google Inc.
2. Consequently, I consider that Mr Rana has no reasonable prospect of succeeding in his claim against Google Australia. The claim against Google Australia is dismissed. Mr Rana must pay the costs of Google Australia of the proceeding.