"The supplier will be responsible only if the publication is offensive and prohibited in an unequivocal and apparent manner. We must not forget that the supplier is not the publisher - he is not the source of the information - and he also does not have a direct connection and the ability to comprehensively check the veracity of the information or the fact that it is protected by law. Therefore, it is not appropriate to assign the doubter the role of censor or judge, except in extreme cases of significant, unequivocal and unjustified harm on the face of things. In this way, we will also prevent the "freezing effect," which will lead to excessive deletion and unjustified private censorship, while infringing too severely on freedom of speech. The vendor will not demand the deletion of any publication, but only particularly blatant and offensive publication - and therefore it will have no incentive to comply with every deletion request."
- Thus, other municipal applications (Tel Aviv District) 44711-11-14 Savir v. Bar Noy [Nevo] (June 22, 2015), imposed tort liability on Google for not removing an advertisement on the search engine according to which an attorney was convicted of disciplinary offenses, a fact that is clearly erroneous, despite the fact that the lawyer brought to her, in his application to her, the fact that his license was not revoked.
The District Court rejected Google's arguments that its liability was limited to its request to the website owner to remove the erroneous advertising, and ruled that in the circumstances of the case, Google was liable for the publication as it was obligated to remove it in the framework of a prior "notice and removal", even without a judicial order. Thus it is stated:
"A search engine should remove misleading advertising when there is no doubt that the search result in the search engine is completely wrong. Insofar as there is doubt about the correctness of the advertising, Google is entitled (and not obligated) to adhere to its position that it will only actively intervene in the content that appears on its website, according to a judicial order. But when it is pertinent, the website also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling, where it can be easily seen that Savir's attorney was not convicted of a disciplinary offense; there was no need to wait for an "order" in court, and there was room to accede to the demand for removal..." (Emphasis in the original - R.A.).