In 2013 the resort manager filed a lawsuit against Google after failing to respond to the search giant’s request.
He was trying to get a blog out of the air where defamatory texts and images (against him and some coworkers) were posted, as well as a false profile created in the already defunct Google+, which also had the same purpose.
Under penalty of a daily fine of $ 1,000, the judge gave a period of five days for Google – which recently decided to boycott Huawei – to remove the offending content and report the data of the person responsible for the blog (including IP addresses and identification) .
By failing to comply with court orders, the search giant was convicted of small fortunes – including the daily fine was increased by the Court of Justice (which deprived Google of the appeal) to $ 3,000, until the withdrawal of the content of the blog .
Although the search giant reported the IP number of the computer used in the publications, the main part of the decision was not followed – with regard to the removal of the offending content.
According to Google, the material had not been removed because it would not have been properly identified. Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze, rapporteur of the STJ case, believes that, in relation to Internet application providers, the thesis of strict liability (provided for in article 927 of the Civil Code) does not apply :
… subjective and joint liability, which is established only when the provider, upon learning about the offensive content, does not take the necessary steps to remove it or to identify the perpetrator of the damage.
The judging panel followed the rapporteur’s vote, confirming Google’s conviction to pay not only the compensation but also the fine.