The biggest issue is that Google associates her name with an attribute nationwide (or even worldwide), because of their gigantic market share, and their status as &quot;the front page of the Internet&quot;. While one could quantify how many people found her through the Ripoff Report, it&#x27;s nearly immeasurable how much damage to her reputation may have been done by Google.<p>It&#x27;s worth considering that Right To Be Forgotten laws are specifically designed to cover these sorts of cases, like defamation, and Google upholding such a policy, even voluntarily in countries which haven&#x27;t passed such laws, would probably save them money by absolving them of a lot of liability. (Surely, in an RTBF-covered country, a defamation suit against Google would go nowhere if the plaintiff hadn&#x27;t filed a RTBF request.)<p>EDIT:<p>Also, in further investigation, Janice Duffy goes into detail on why she feels Google is specifically culpable here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.authorizedstatement.org&#x2F;statements&#x2F;authorized-sta.." rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.authorizedstatement.org&#x2F;statements&#x2F;authorized-sta...</a>.<p>Namely that a senior Google employee recognized Ripoff Report&#x27;s business model as suspect, and Ripoff Report&#x27;s ads had already been suspended by Google&#x27;s ad products for unsavory business practices, yet Google had still refused to remove the defamation against her.