&gt; they make a decision on the veracity of the remaining information through their results<p>No, they don&#x27;t.  They attempt to figure out which site you might be looking for based on the terms you typed in; relevance to your search terms may or may not be correlated with veracity.<p>&gt;  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>The comment I replied to said the plaintiff had &quot;contacted&quot; Google, and expected that to suffice.  I gave an example of people who &quot;contact&quot; Google and should rightfully be ignored.  Now you&#x27;re saying that those people don&#x27;t have standing to sue so it&#x27;s OK.<p>Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation.  You seem to be arguing that Google is in a position to judge whether content is defamation (which necessarily involves a determination of truth), based on nothing but someone contacting them.  How, precisely, would you propose they do that?  This particular court certainly didn&#x27;t offer any insights there.<p>&gt;  I am not for limiting the rights of individuals over corporations.<p>Judgments should not under any circumstances depend on <i>who</i> the plaintiff or defendant are.  This judgment is precedent for a similar suit against a far smaller defendant.  I&#x27;m not concerned that Google will be deeply hurt by a six-figure court judgment and hope they win on appeal because it&#x27;ll help their bottom line; I think this sets a completely broken precedent and I hope Google wins on appeal to reverse that.<p>&gt; Traditionally, if someone were to publish something false in a newspaper the plaintiff could name the author, editor and newspaper publisher.<p>Of course.  But that doesn&#x27;t mean the plaintiff should be able to name a third-party who provides a list of headlines found in newspapers, <i>especially</i> not if they haven&#x27;t actually sued the newspaper and won.