Mexico Court Fines Google ~$200M Over Defamatory Google-Hosted Blog Post

From Mexico News Daily Friday:

Mexico City court has ordered tech giant Google to pay more than 4 billion pesos (US $196.4 million) to a Mexican lawyer for allowing defamatory information to be published about him on a blogging platform it owns.

Ulrich Richter Morales, a criminal lawyer, initiated legal action against the multinational technology company in 2015 due to its hosting on its Blogger platform of a blog that linked him to drug trafficking, money laundering and the falsification of documents.

The blog, which remains online, but hasn't been updated since 2014, was published under the title Ulrich Richter Morales y sus chingaderas a la patria (Ulrich Richter Morales and his despicable deeds against the homeland). The identity of its creator is not publicly known….

A different news account reports that the fine is $250M (5 billion pesos). Google has said it would appeal. Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) MediaLawDaily for the pointer.

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

While my principles despise such judgments, my inner karma audience laughs.

My inner IANAL wonders what leverage Mexico has to collect. Does Google do business in Mexico with servers? Paid ads? Actual employees, even actual offices?

[Eugene Volokh]

I think Google has a Mexico City office.

[John F. Carr]

Whatever the law says, a big tech company is going to have to have some physical presence in a country where it does a lot of business. It wants servers located close to customers. It wants domestic instead of international financial transactions.

A tech company can set up a subsidiary so only EvilCo Mexico is subject to the jurisdiction of Mexican courts and the parent EvilCo USA is not. It can lose everything it has in the country, but if a Mexican plaintiff wants more it has to convince a U.S. court that the judgment should be recognized under U.S. law.

[F.D. Wolf]

I'm sure Google has many assets in Mexico. Also, of course, foreign judgments can be enforced in other countries, and while the SPEECH Act of 2010 prevents the enforcement of foreign judgments in this country that do not comply with Section 230, as this one probably would not, other nations such as those in Europe seem less deferential toward Big Tech than the United States.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Now that is funny -- No Section 230 in Mexico! Who'da thought it?

[Shamie Ervin iv]

That said, I'm with Google. If someone wants to call a Mexican lawyer an oozing stinking carbuncle, it's alright with me. This poor injured little Mexican lawyer must have political friends in high places.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

And how are they going to collect it? Remember, Google can shut Mexico off a lot easier than Mexico can shut google off

[Longtobefree]

Google doesn't have an army (yet).

[DWB]

There is no greater organized crime organization than government

[rsteinmetz]

I understand the US has agreements with many countries to enforce their judgments here, and in return for the other country to enforce US judgments there. Sometimes for policy reasons some types of judgments won't be enforced, whether this is one of those I don't know, in fact I don't know much about this kind of thing. Perhaps a lawyer can advise us.

[David Nieporent]

The SPEECH Act says that the U.S. will not enforce any foreign judgment obtained in a country whose defamation laws are less protective of speech than ours.

[Krayt]

No lawyer could possibly have that much damage done to him. He is worth half the lawsuits ever filed in Mexico, and all the other lawyers the other half?

[Krayt]

That would make a good line in John Lenon's Imagine...

"There's no one you can sue over
Some other lawyer can't sue..."

[Voize of Reazon]

I note that Mexico won't get any help from US courts since Congress expanded the SPEECH Act in 2010 such that foreign defamation judgments must comport with §230 to be enforceable.

[ducksalad]

"Despicable deeds"? I guess it could be translated that way....

[Aubrey LaVentana]

I would have translated that more colorfully.

[David Nieporent]

Waiting for Lathrop to pop in to explain why this is actually a great thing for speech.

[F.D. Wolf]

Mexico is a civil-law. as opposed to a common-law country like the United States, so, of course, I have no idea if this decision is correct under the legal codes of Mexico.

However, under the common law, if Google owned the blogging platform, knew or should have known the content was defamatory, and failed to remove it in a reasonable amount of time, then Google would be guilty of defamation. Section 230 immunity does not extend south of the Rio Grande.

[jcalton]

"...a blog that linked him to drug trafficking, money laundering and the falsification of documents."

Being linked to drug trafficking can and will get you killed in Mexico, so this is a bit more than "mere" libel.