Google vs. Richter: Mexico Ruling to Have Widespread Impact

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court of our country will settle a long-running conflict between Google and a lawyer, Ulrich Richter, who had demanded the removal of a blog on the company's platform that he claimed was defamatory. It is a high-profile case, as judges have previously awarded exorbitant settlements in similar cases, although certainly not as much as the US$250 million to a single individual that Richter is seeking. But beyond that, what is at stake are fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, and even our understanding of responsibility online.

How it all began might seem ridiculous. It's incredible that something that could have been nothing more than a quick story has now reached the highest levels of the Mexican courts, especially when we realize that it might have been easier to resolve if both sides had shared a common language, or in other words, had a dictionary at hand. This last point may be the truly important precedent.

When we talk about technology, everything is considered new, different, and dizzying. All previous knowledge feels obsolete. This situation pushes us into an extremely dangerous trap: we are racing to adopt what happens in other regions while believing our system isn't designed to adequately regulate what happens in cyberspace. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mexico has not only been a pioneer of the Amparo Law and Social Rights, but it has also been at the forefront of issues related to digital violence and advancements such as the Olimpia, Ingrid, and Valeria laws.

Our country has always safeguarded essential rights such as freedom of expression, the right to honor, and privacy. Beyond recent reforms, the so-called ARCO Rights (Access, Rectification, Cancellation, and Opposition) represent an important sphere of privacy protection. Unfortunately, high-profile cases such as the Right to be Forgotten in Europe and punitive damages lawsuits in the United States have led many lawyers, judges, and academics to think that "the grass is always greener on the other side." And, with that comes the temptation to adopt legal concepts without truly understanding them and without identifying the similarities and differences with our own authentic perspective.

Undoubtedly, defamation is not the same as spreading fake news. Nor is censorship the same as protecting copyright. And certainly, opposing content is not the same as canceling it. But in this case, we see how all these concepts are mixed up.

Many years ago, Richter represented a woman in a family law case. His counterpart used various blogs maliciously and aggressively to attack him. When the lawsuit ended, only one blog remained online. It contained images, altered like memes, with captions about money laundering and alleged DEA investigations. Although the information was clearly unserious, to say the least, Ulrich requested its removal from Blogger, a Google platform. The company, for its part, argued that it was acting as an intermediary and not seeking to limit free expression. Can we all unequivocally see that as false? Couldn't Google remove the content, given that it includes altered book covers, which violates copyright?

As we said, the two sides didn't see it the same way. On the one hand, we agree that freedom of expression should be as broad as possible, although it's not an absolute right. On the other hand, informational self-determination must also be protected, although this shouldn't infringe upon the right to know the truth. And, especially, cyberspace must be used so that we, as citizens, are considered as such and not merely as users. 

The Right to be Forgotten refers to a person's right to have information they consider outdated removed from the indexing of search results. The information is accurate, so it's not defamation, but it could be detrimental to the person being discussed. It's not fake news, but the argument is made that, over time, its knowledge becomes irrelevant to the rest of the public. It's a debatable concept because it could undermine our ability to provide context, rather than platforms or those affected. In Richter's case, it shouldn't be applied since the blog doesn't publish true information. As well, punitive damages are exemplary measures to prevent those sued from choosing to continue with profitable business models and pay minimal sums to third parties rather than change their processes. But, in Mexico, we have our own mechanisms, such as reparations for damages to individuals and administrative sanctions. In this way, resources are distributed and benefit the entire community, not just one person, and the individual receives fair compensation based not on the defendant's profits but in proportion to the damage suffered. Otherwise, we would open the door to monetization rather than fostering change.

The court has the power to define all these concepts rather than importing them. It is not about Richter or Google; it is about the need for an understandable vocabulary of digital rights.