7 ms·

In the UK at least, these consequences (website going offline / certificate warning / unsearchable in the search engine) would likely be deemed "pure economic l

In the UK at least, these consequences (website going offline / certificate warning / unsearchable in the search engine) would likely be deemed "pure economic loss" following Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 and Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 where the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively held that unless some sort of physical harm was suffered to you or your property, the losses were held to be "purely economic" and so not recoverable in tort. It's unlikely that any claimant would be able to show a contractual provision that enables them to claim for damages against Google (thus allowing them to sue in contract), so a cause of action for tort would be the usual way to sue Google - except unless Google makes you suffer some form of physical harm or damages your property, you're unlikely to be able to recover any damages for your website suffering these consequences, in the UK at least. I understand US law may be quite different. There's a testable argument to be made about the requirement for "damage" to your property (the website) being inflicted by the certificate warning, but policy arguments on the matter of "ripple effect" liability makes it seem likely the courts would hold that Google isn't liable. Also Google is probably far better placed to weather lawsuits than most ordinary people; they can probably afford to induce the other party to settle out of court, and presumably the relevant monopoly and abuse of market position laws only allow a regulator to take legal action (the ordinary consumer being restricted to contract and tort lawsuits).

golemiprague 6y ago
What about simple libel? if google openly declare to people that your site harm them when it is not, isn't it a classic libel?
fefe23 6y ago
I'm guessing the web site has telemetry and analytics and can show the conversion rate going down. If the web site sells something, you could even put a dollar amount on the damage. I'm probably misunderstanding your argument here, but if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Stealing your bike is an inherently illegal action, so the culprit is also liable for losses caused by that. Having a browser you develop show "we don't like this site" is not illegal per se; and by default if something you have the right to do causes a loss to someone else, that's their problem - for example, if I put out a new excellent product for sale at a great price, that causes clear, measurable and provable economic damage to my competitors, possibly even bankrupting them, but that's their problem, not mine, because I did nothing wrong and did not owe them any duty to preserve their profits. There is the concept of "tort" which may apply for such losses, but that generally requires specific intent (which is absent here), negligence (which requires the existence of some obligation or duty of care, which IMHO is absent here, Google has no obligation to show your site correctly in Chrome) or the narrow cases where strict liability applies, which also is absent here - the parent post goes into detail of why in this particular case a tort claim is likely to not succeed.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  > if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!? Yes, they would. This is because there is a specific Act of Parliament known as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which specifically addresses the tort of "trespass to goods" also known as "wrongful interference with goods". You would need to prove that Google "deliberately" interfered with your bike, on the balance of probabilities. However, Google would have two defences: - Consent (e.g. you trespass on to their land, and they clamp or detain your bike - you are seen as consenting to the consequences of your trespass, namely the clamping, so cannot argue wrongful interference with goods) - Distress damage feasant (e.g. you trespass on to their land, Google is entitled to seize and detain any property you brought with you until you leave, or (if damage has been caused) until you pay for any damages). There are no other specific defences to this tort, only general defences to a tort (such as limitation, illegality, etc.) In your stated case, assuming you proved the tort on the balance of probabilities, you'd be entitled to damages per Section 3 of the Act.

golemiprague 6y ago

What about simple libel? if google openly declare to people that your site harm them when it is not, isn't it a classic libel?

fefe23 6y ago

I'm guessing the web site has telemetry and analytics and can show the conversion rate going down. If the web site sells something, you could even put a dollar amount on the damage. I'm probably misunderstanding your argument here, but if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!?

PeterisP 6y ago
Stealing your bike is an inherently illegal action, so the culprit is also liable for losses caused by that. Having a browser you develop show "we don't like this site" is not illegal per se; and by default if something you have the right to do causes a loss to someone else, that's their problem - for example, if I put out a new excellent product for sale at a great price, that causes clear, measurable and provable economic damage to my competitors, possibly even bankrupting them, but that's their problem, not mine, because I did nothing wrong and did not owe them any duty to preserve their profits. There is the concept of "tort" which may apply for such losses, but that generally requires specific intent (which is absent here), negligence (which requires the existence of some obligation or duty of care, which IMHO is absent here, Google has no obligation to show your site correctly in Chrome) or the narrow cases where strict liability applies, which also is absent here - the parent post goes into detail of why in this particular case a tort claim is likely to not succeed.
matthewheath 6y ago
> if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!? Yes, they would. This is because there is a specific Act of Parliament known as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which specifically addresses the tort of "trespass to goods" also known as "wrongful interference with goods". You would need to prove that Google "deliberately" interfered with your bike, on the balance of probabilities. However, Google would have two defences: - Consent (e.g. you trespass on to their land, and they clamp or detain your bike - you are seen as consenting to the consequences of your trespass, namely the clamping, so cannot argue wrongful interference with goods) - Distress damage feasant (e.g. you trespass on to their land, Google is entitled to seize and detain any property you brought with you until you leave, or (if damage has been caused) until you pay for any damages). There are no other specific defences to this tort, only general defences to a tort (such as limitation, illegality, etc.) In your stated case, assuming you proved the tort on the balance of probabilities, you'd be entitled to damages per Section 3 of the Act.