- 5 A B A Court of New South Wales in Bleyer v Google Inc6 which I will return to below. C D B Mr McCoy SC suggested there was a lack of sufficient or material publication to a third party to support service of process on Google Inc out of jurisdiction, and I should have concluded it would be a C D disproportionate engagement of the court’s resources to allow Yeung’s E artificially constructed “set piece” alleged libel to proceed. F F 8. G H E In respect of Ground 2, Mr McCoy submitted my characterisation of Google Search in the Decision was erroneous. He argued that since I had accepted Google Inc’s algorithms weighed several G H factors outside their control and Google Inc had no hand in what users I J had searched in the past or the content of web information, it was wrong for me to conclude there was an arguable case that Google Inc had I J “actively facilitated or intentionally assisted” in the process of conveying K L the alleged defamatory Words. Mr McCoy SC submitted that Google Search’s recombination and aggregation of data was merely for the K L purpose of improving the search function for its users, and did not affect M N the underlying information dictated by (amongst other factors) search queries and web content made by other users. Mr McCoy SC M N complained that in holding there was a good arguable case that Google O P Inc was a “publisher”, I essentially made them a victim of their own success in improving the quality of the information generated by Google Search. Q R O P He added that Google Inc’s ability to censor material by manually editing results was neither here nor there to the issue of whether the Autocomplete and Related Searches functions fell within the passivity Q R rule. S T S 6 [2014] NSWSC 897 (handed down on 12 August 2014, a mere seven days after the Decision was handed down) T U U V V