Derecho informatico : precautionary measures against google

Innovative reject Injunction for Google No Release Information Concerning a Person

In the context of a habeas data against the company Google Argentina SRL, so that the erroneous information about a person is deleted, the Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Federal rejected the innovative measure sought by the plaintiff to the company is ordered to refrain from disseminating any information in your browser on your person.

In the present case, the plaintiff had brought an action of habeas data against the company Google Argentina SRL, in order to delete the wrong information about you, that records and broadcasts through your browser, requesting an injunction to be ordered to the driven to proceed, while the process is substance, to refrain from disclosing any information in the search on his person.

The requested injunction was rejected by the trial judge, who said if ordering the removal of the information the actor and any reference to it online preemptively, was running ahead of the disputed object, because they correspond to previously define whether the firm or Google was not the spread or disclosing the information that was misleading or false according to the actor, while it was up to her to determine whether a third party or the removal or modification of the mentioned information.

In cars “Faynbloch Luis Ernesto c/ Google Argentina S.R.L”, Division III of the National Chamber of Appeals in Commercial Matters considered that the respondent was not appropriate precautionary, arguing in this regard that such claim is an impediment the scope of the law 26.032, which states in its first article that "the search, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, service through the Internet, regarded as coming under the constitutional guarantee that protects freedom of expression”.

In Case 13 November 2009, The appellate judges rejected the innovative measure requested by actor, noting that the issues raised by the plaintiff regarding the erroneous information and its harmful consequences, would be related to that provided by the site; considering that it was not possible to establish with certainty at this stage, If Google is the person who discloses information or simply links the information made by third.

Thus, the judges determined that this situation can only be resolved after the debate had occurred substantiated and relevant evidence, noting that otherwise would run an action against who eventually is not responsible for the specific information that is credited with damaging consequences for the actor.

On the other hand, the maids also confirmed the decision of the National Court of First Instance in Civil and Commercial Matters No. 6, which declared incompetent, ordering refer the case to the National Court of First Instance in Commercial, after considering that none of the cases is given prescribing Article 36 law 25.326 for the source of federal jurisdiction to hear habeas data filed against the company that owns an Internet search engine, whereby the actor intended to misinformation about him deletion.

In this regard, judges understood that the provisions that establish federal jurisdiction, which by its nature is limited, must be interpreted strictly excluding her analogy situations which are not specifically referred to in each case.

source :