&gt;And I&#x27;m sure some people regularly contact Google asking for removal of &quot;false&quot; information about dinosaur fossils and the earth being more than a few thousand years old. Acting on any such request would be making a decision on the veracity of that information.<p>Google already does this...they remove websites from their results and they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results.  As to the dinosaur fossils...they don&#x27;t have standing to sue over defamation, so Google is protected from making the hard decisions there.<p>&gt;The courts should have told the plaintiff to sue the site publishing the information...<p>Where you find Google is just &quot;a search engine linking to the information&quot;, according to the article, the court found Google was both <i>publishing</i> and promoting the defamation.  I can see courts splitting on this issues for sure, so you might get your hope on appeal, but I don&#x27;t think it is an intellectually dishonest conclusion to view search result&#x2F;ads as more than &quot;links&quot; but impressions Google approves for publication in their search results.<p>Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher.   I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations. In fairness I recognize technology makes it easier than ever to publish&#x2F;republish false statements, but I am more inclined to feel bad for the individual being defamed on a scale never seen before more than I am to feel bad for Google because the Court didn&#x27;t buy their argument that they should not be liable because they are just a &quot;search engine&quot; and it would burden them to stop linking to false information about people.