Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Complete name: Zwartepoorte Specialiteit: BMW...This company has been declared bankrupt, it has been acquired by the motordealer I have worked for Boat Rialto...
According to Zwartepoorte, this snippet indicated it had gone bankrupt. But it hadn't gone bankrupt. So it sued the owner of the webpage.
Thw website that got sued happened to mention the company in question on one of their pages.
The same page also contained the phrase "This company has been declared bankrupt" (in Dutch) - referring to a completely different company.
Google then produced a snippet containing both parts in its search results, separated by ellipses.
At no time did the "offending" site ever suggest that the company in question had gone bankrupt.
But a judge ordered them to change their page.
Now, if I make a page that contains two unrelated statements in separate paragraphs - as I probably do on every page I write - a Google search snippet might juxtapose them in the same way.
I might, for instance say in one paragraph "There is a highly respected contributor to WebmasterWorld who uses the name Tedster" - it would be an accurate statement of fact.
Further down the page in another paragraph I might say of someone else entirely "This man is a violent criminal with numerous convictions" - equally an accurate statement of fact..
Presumably a Google snippet for the search term "Tedster criminal" would show something like "Tedster... This man is a violent criminal".
In any page of text the possibilities are endless.
Apologies to Tedster for using him as an example, but if I had used the real name of any famous celebrity then it might open the door to legal action, at least in Holland.
The judge's ruling sets an alarming precedent.
But I find it staggering that whoever was instructed for the defence failed to demonstrate to the judge that Google aggregated the content and that it was their responsibility. I'm sure they could have generated lots of examples of this sort of thing themselves to show where the 'problem' lies.
Maybe BMW thought they'd have a tougher time with Google and figured the quickest way to deal was to intimidate the smaller fish.
Needs reversing badly.
"Tedster said something on another thread about the immune system and ... What they are doing is clearly criminal but completely unprovable. ..."
The two phrases are not even close to each other on the page in question.