Google To Pay $1.5 Million For Refusing To De-Index Defamatory Link

On February 11, 2026, the Quebec Court of Appeal (the Court) in A.B. c. Google, 2026 QCCA 157, considered, for the first time, the issue of the liability of an intermediary whose search engine indexes a link leading to undisputedly false and defamatory information, where the intermediary did not author the post or reproduce its contents. Among other findings, the Court ordered Google to pay $1,500,000 in punitive damages for doing so.

In 2007, A.B. used Google’s search engine to search his own name and became aware of defamatory content (including a false assertion of a criminal conviction) posted online. A.B. asked Google to de-index the URL for the web page (i.e., remove it from the search results), but Google refused citing immunity under s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act 47 USC § 230(c)(1) (1996) – a U.S. federal statute.

In 2009, A.B. provided Google with a certificate from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stating that A.B. had not been convicted of anything. After reviewing the certificate, Google de-indexed the URL – excluding it from the results provided by Google’s search engine. When the URL reappeared in the results in 2009 and then in 2011, Google de-indexed the URL again.

In 2015, the URL reappeared in Google’s search results. A.B. requested its de-indexing. Google declined to continue de-indexing the URL, relying on Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47, which held that hyperlinking to a web page containing allegedly defamatory content did not constitute “publication” if the hyperlink did not itself include any of the defamatory content.

On appeal, the Court reviewed whether the trial judge erred on several issues, including in:

1. finding Google committed a fault;
2. finding Google caused moral injury to A.B. and assessing damages at $500,000; and
3. declining to award punitive damages.

On issue (1), the Court affirmed that Google failed to fulfill its duty prescribed by Section 22 of Quebec’s IT Framework Act by refusing to de-index the URL after being made aware of the defamatory content to which it linked. The Court found that Section 22 establishes a duty on technology intermediaries to act once they are made aware that their services are being used for illicit activity. The Court distinguished the facts at hand from those in Crookes in that Crookes dealt with the liability of an author, while this case deals with liability of an intermediary; and noted that the reasoning of Crookes, related to the elements of the common law tort of defamation, cannot be directly transposed to the civil law system, which is rooted in the standard of fault, that is, behaviour that departs from that of a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances.

On issue (2), the Court held that the defamatory content caused moral injury, but took issue with the quantification of damages at $500,000. The Court thus reduced the award against Google to $25,000.

Lastly, on issue (3), the Court found that Google’s actions were both intentional and unlawful because it had knowledge of the immediate and natural consequences of its conduct on A.B. The Court found that Google committed a civil fault when it refused to de-index the relevant URL and quantified punitive damages at $1,500,000, focusing on the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation.

Summary By: Amy Ariganello