A doctor made a listing on Google, advertising his medical services. In that listing, he made claims of being an unrivalled expert, a household name, and an industry leader.

Google’s platform allows users to submit reviews on the listings. Many users submitted negative reviews on the doctor’s listing. The reviews claim that he had "butchered" patients, was "incompetent", "a fraud", "an illicit drug user" and had "no morals". The doctor laments that this caused a substantial decline in his business. 

Google counters, however, that it acted reasonably in providing a review platform because the man promoted himself in "extravagant terms". They said the man referred to himself as "a household name" with "unrivalled" expertise and was "an industry leader". 

According to Google, advertising and self-promotion in the style engaged in by the plaintiff involves puffery and hyperbole which is not susceptible of proof.

Google also argues that it published the material as a "subordinate distributor" and did not know, nor should have reasonably known, that the material was defamatory. 

This landmark case will raise broader questions about the legal responsibility of review platforms to monitor and act swiftly on allegedly defamatory material uploaded by their users. 

In other jurisdictions subordinate distributors are not liable for defamatory remarks made through their platforms. Subordinate distributors merely facilitate or provide the medium for the author of a statement to publish his/her remark. They are not the authors. The authors are the ones who are liable for the defamatory remarks as they are the ones who, with malice, seek to ruin another person’s reputation.