- 15 A B A to the users as Autocomplete and Related Searches predictive keywords. B It is on such basis that I have found it may arguably (but not necessarily C D or definitively) be said Google Search does deal with content by crawling and indexing websites, aggregating data from previous search queries, C D and generating predictive keywords for the Autocomplete and Related E F Searches features, and by virtue of such features it is also arguable that unlike mere conduits or passive facilitators Google Inc may be considered E F to be a publisher of injurious content of the predictive suggestions.18 G H I also bear in mind that it is on general and broad principles that Fevaworks Solutions Ltd has held that secondary publishers who do not G H actually know and do not intend to publish the defamatory materials are I nevertheless “publishers” under the strict publication rule,19 but they can I J avoid liability by invoking the innocent dissemination defence (if they J can). K L K 28. Mr McCoy SC has accepted that Bleyer may not be L definitive in this jurisdiction. But that said, he may have a point in his M N submissions that nuanced principles are likely to develop in a “different context” in the internet world (in relation to Autocomplete and Related M N Searches features) within the framework identified by Fevaworks O P Solutions Ltd. I do not ignore (a) the possibility that Hong Kong courts may have to explore and discover our own way instead of transposing O P foreign case law on the issue of whether Google Inc is a “publisher” in Q the present context, and (b) the risk posed by the interplay of divergent R R 18 S T Q 19 Google Inc does not take issue that the Words are defamatory of Yeung ie persons who are liable if by acts of any description they can be said to have intentionally assisted in conveying the defamatory materials to third parties without having to know that the materials contained the defamatory words and despite having acted with reasonable care S T U U V V