In other words, all the actions listed in section 12 of the Torts Ordinance are actions that have not yet been acted, with the exception of one - the act of ratification.
Thus, given the fact that the liability of Google and Meta for advertising is liability after the fact, apart from the ratification alternative to any of the alternatives listed in section 12 of the Torts Ordinance, there is no revival in our case, nor does the "inheritance" alternative, since this alternative relates to, as determined, to the authority that was given prior to the act.
- Later in the judgment in the Weiner case, it was held with respect to the ratification alternative relevant to our case that:
"As far as the alternative of retroactive approval is concerned, the case law states that it must be shown that the ratifier knew that the acts committed constituted a tort or it must be proven that he took upon himself the risk and responsibility for it."
In the PA case , an additional distinction was made in the matter of the ratification alternative: the ratification alternative is not the granting of retroactive approval, since according to the Ibn Shushan dictionary, a "ratification" is one who "gave final approval at a higher level after it had already been approved at a lower level" (paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Acting President, the Honorable Justice Y. Amit). Accordingly, in paragraph 20 of the judgment it was held that "ratification" means:
"Validating a legal action, so that it is the ratification (in the sense of retroactive approval) that perfects that action."
It follows from the compilation, in accordance with the law, that the act of ratification is valid and refines a legal action, until which the legal action had no validity.
Therefore, this alternative does not apply to our case either. The refusal of Meta or Google to remove the ads did not include the ads. These were published in the institutions even before they refused to remove them, and they had independent vitality even without their refusal to remove them.
- Paragraph 42 of the judgment in the PA case states:
"Conduct that appears to be ostensibly confirmatory is not necessarily unequivocal, and not every act that may be construed as support or encouragement of harmful action will automatically be considered ratification. The act must attest to taking responsibility for the commission of a tort (see and compare: Barak - Vicarious Liability, p. 119) or taking the risk of doing so, in a manner that creates a kind of partnership in the tortious act, which justifies imposing personal liability on the participant."