Google Autocomplete falsely associates Italian businessman with 'fraud'
An unnamed entrpreneur was falsely linked by Google's Autocomplete feature to terms suggesting he was a ‘truffa’ ('fraud') and ‘truffatore’ ( 'conman'), prompting a lawsuit. The unnamed entrepreneur had complained in a lawsuit that, when his name was typed into the search engine, Autocomplete suggested terms that were defamatory and adversely affected his reputation and business in the financial services sector. His lawyer noted that the defamatory suggestions caused "a lot of trouble" for him, highlighting the distress and potential loss of clients that can arise from such damaging associations. The court upheld his complaint, rejecting Google's defense that it was merely a neutral platform relying on user-generated search data. Instead, the court determined that Google had control over the content produced by its algorithms and ordered the company to filter out these defamatory terms from its Autocomplete results. As a result, Google was required to pay approximately EUR 3,800 (USD 5,550) in legal costs and damages. Google said it was ‘disappointed’ by the decision, adding: ‘We believe that Google should not be held liable for terms that appear in Autocomplete as these are predicted by computer algorithms based on searches from previous users, not by Google itself.’ Autocomplete Autocomplete, or word completion, is a feature in which an application predicts the rest of a word a user is typing. In Android and iOS smartphones , this is called predictive text. Source: Wikipedia 🔗 System 🤖 Google Autocomplete Operator: Alphabet/Google Developer: Alphabet/Google Country: Italy Sector: Banking/financial services Purpose: Predict search results Technology: NLP/text analysis; Deep learning; Machine learning Issue: A ccountability; Accuracy/reliability; Mis/disinformation
- Date it happened
- 2011-04-01
- Organisation involved
- Product, system or model
- Google Autocomplete
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.