merger law assoc v wells and google 109486

Court File:ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

In the matter of theLibel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 299o, c. L.12

BETWEEN:

MERGER LAW ASSOCIATES LTD. andJULIUS CSURGO

Plaintiffs

-and-

MATTHEW WELLSan~,IC

Defendants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A LEUCkdEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff.The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting foryou must prepare a statement of defence in Form i8A prescribed by the Rules of CivilProcedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have alawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office,WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are servedin Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States ofAmerica, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If youare served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice ofintent to defend in Form 28B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitleyou to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING# JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINSTYOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISHTO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGALAID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $2,500 for costs, within the time forserving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceedingdismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, youmay pay the plaintiff's claim and s400 for costs and have the costs assessed by thecourt.

Date: August 4, 2010 Issued bv-A..'Local registrar

Addre s ofcourt office: 393 University Avenue

io' FloorToronto, ON, M5G iE6

TO: MATTHEW WELLS GOOGLE, INC.323 Lonsdale Road, 273o Gateway Oaks Dr.Unit # 303, S uite :LooToronto, ON, M4V IX3 Sacramento,' CA 95833Canada United States of America

Telephone: 416-487-5348. or

26oo Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain View CA 94043United States of America

PO.ge3

CLAIM

2. The individual plaintiff, julius csurgo, claims against the defendant Matthew

Wells as follows:

(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $500,000 pursuant to the Libel and

Slander Act, R.S.O.:L9 9o, c. L.:12, as amended;

(b) special damages for libel in the amount of $4,100,000;

(c) aggravated damages for libel in the amount of s100,000;

(d) punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;

(e) damages for lost business opportunities in an amount in Canadian

currency sufficient to purchase $4 million in the currency of the United

States of America at a bank in Ontario listed in Schedule I to the Bank

Act (Canada) at the close of business on the first day on which the bank

quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of the currency of the United

States of America before the day payment of the obligation is received

by the Plaintiff(s);

(f) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of

Justice Act, R.S.O. 1 990, C. C.43, as amended;

(g) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and

(h) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

2. The corporate plaintiff, Merger Law Associates Ltd., claims against the

defendant Wells as follows:

(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $50o,oo0 pursuant to the Libel and

Slander Act, R.S.O. 199o, c. L. 12, as amended;

(b) special damages for libel in the amount of $4,1i0,000;

(c) punitive damages in the amount Of $50,0001

(d) damages for lost business opportunities in an amount in Canadian







(e) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of

Justice Act, R.S-..1990 cC.43, as amended;

Pages5

Mf costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and

(g) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

3. Both plaintiffs claim against the defendant Google, Inc. as follows:

(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $500,000 pursuant to the Libel and

Slander Act, R.S.O. 3.99o, c. L.:12, as amended;

(b) special damages for libel in the amount Of $4,100,000;

(c) damages for lost business opportunities in an amount in Canadian







(d) A permanent injunction and mandatory Order directing Google, Inc. to:

(i) suspend and/or terminate the Battle Light blog (as defined

below);

(ii) suspend and/or terminate Mr. Well's blog account with the

Blogger Service (as defined below); and/or

(iii) delete any and all references to the plaintiffs in the Battle Light

blog (as defined below);

(e) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of

Justice Act, R.S.O. 1 990, C. C.43, as amended;

Mf costs of this action on a partial indemnity basis; and

(g) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

The Parties

4- Julius Csurgo ("Mr. Csurgo") is an individual residing in the Netherlands, in

Europe. He is primarily engaged in the sale of corporate shells and the obtaining

of public listings for corporations. Such listings end up, primarily, on the

Frankfurt Bourse in Germany.

5. Merger Law Associates Ltd. ("MLAL") is a corporation organized and operating

under the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. It is the beneficial owner

of much of the business activity of Mr. Csurgo.

Pag0e 7

6. Matt Wells ("Mr. Wells") is an individual residing in Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Wells,

under the pseudonym "HitElevenn, posts on a weblog called Battle Light (the

"Battle Light Blog"). The website address for Battle Light Blog is hLttp:HIBattle

Light.blogspot.com/.

7. Google, Inc. ("Google") is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive

offices located in Mountain View, California. Founded in 31998, Google is an

Internet search engine technology provider, that also provides other services.

Background to the Publication of the Libel

8. Amongst the services offered by Google, is a web publishing service alternately

called Blogger or Blogspot (hereinafter the "Blogger Service"). The Blogger

Service is owned by Google, but much of the content on the Blogger Service is

on individual weblogs - called "blogSn - with the specific postings on the blogs

that are published to the site being generally provided and maintained by

individuals.

9. Individuals use the Blogger service and its associated software under a personal,

worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive licence from Google

to use such software.

10. By signing on to the Blogger Service, exercising his or her rights under the

respective licence, and operating a blog, the individual "blogger" agrees to abide

by a variety of Google policies including the following:

(a) Google Terms of Service ("Google TOS");

(b) Blogger Terms of Service ("Blogger TOS"); and the

(c) Blogger Content Policy ("Blogger CPu).

11. The plaintiffs repeat and rely upon the Google TOS, Blogger TOS and Blogger

CP in full, and further rely on such specific terms as are set out below.

22. While the Plaintiffs repeat and rely upon the terms of the Google TOS, Blogger

TOS and Blogger CP in full, neither of the Plaintiffs is a party to nor bound by

such agreements. Mr. Wells and Google, however, are bound by such

agreements.

The Libel

13. The following statements, defamatory of either Mr. Csurgo, MLAL, or both,

were each published on the Battle Light Blog between June -14, zo3.o, and June

27, 2010:

(a) On June 2.4, 2010, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that , "Mr.

Csurgo and Mr. Shea ..and their firm, Merger Law Associates Ltd, have

been implicated in a number of seeming "boiler room" type stock scams,

and are so untrustworthy that the UK Financial Service Authority has

issued a warning about them."

(i) In fact, neither Mr. Csurgo nor Merger Law has ever been

involved in any boiler room-type stock scam.

(ii) The allegation that they have been, as set out in the Battle Light

Blog, is false and defamatory.

(iii) Further, contrary to the allegations in the Battle Light Blog, there

has not been any UK Financial Service Authority warning about

Mr. Csurgo.

(b) On June 16, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that

"Merger Law Associates Ltd" is an " international firm with Toronto roots

[and it] has engaged in what looks to be widespread stock fraud,

promoting several (possibly shoddy) companies via various

telemarketing scams. "

i) In fact, MLAL has never been engaged in "widespread market

fraud" or other market fraud.

00i Nor has MLAL ever promoted companies, shoddy or otherwise,

through "telemarketing scams".

(iii) To suggest otherwise, as does Mr. Wells in the Blog, is false and

defamatory.

(c) On June 16, 2owo, in the midst of Mr. Well's discussion of Julius Csurgo,

Preston Shea and MLAL's alleged interest in Equity Capital, it was

published on the Battle Light Blog that:

"Mr. Csurgo and Mr. Shea own almost exactly 33% of thecompany. And this is a firm that they are shilling viatelemarketing fraud."

(i) In fact, neither Mr. Csurgo nor MLALf, have "shilled" any company

or firm "via telemarketing fraud" or any other fraud.

00i The statement that they did do so is blatantly defamatory.

(d) On June 20, 2oio, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL

was fat the epicentre of this scam" referring to what is termed a

"telephone solicitation scam" and referring to firms "doing the calling

and firms that are being pedaled by the sellers".

(i) The impression given that MLAL is somehow involved in a

"scam", either involving telephone solicitation or otherwise, is a

false impression and defamatory.

(e) On June 21, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that

"Uranium 308 and the Vita Sweet/Afterwire" were Hpart of the same

stock scam, being perpetrated by the same groups." Then, the Blog

refers to the "The evidence [as being] all there." That "evidence" is

expressly stated to include "the links to Julius Csurgo" as if any "link* to

Mr. Csurgo was evidence of a "stock scam"

(i) The impression given that Mr. Csurgo's very linkage to a project is

evid ence of a scam is demonstrably untrue and blatantly

defamatory.

(f) On June 21, 2010,,1 it was published on the Battle Light Blog that Mr.

Csurgo was making "an amazing return on his investment" and

possessing "tens of millions of pounds of share capital in Corporate

Bourse". It was published on the Battle Light Blog that "the sheer jump in

value here (was] remarkable." The Blog then immediately refers to there

being "more that you can do with one of these companies than just enjoy

the lofty jump in share capital" and suggesting that "there are plenty of

other innocent folks you can lure into further traps."

(i) The clear impression given is that Mr. Csurgo "lures" innocent

folks into "traps".

(ii) Such impression is a false impression and blatantly defamatory.

(g) On June 22, 2oi0, a description of Mr. Csurgo was published on the

Battle Light Blog referring to him as being one of the "big fish in this

scam#$

(i) The clear impression given is that Mr. Csurgo is not only a scam

artist but one of the persons directing some alleged scam.

00i Both of these allegations are false and blatantly defamatory.

(h) On June 23, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that "Mr.

Csurgo or one of his associates" had been trying to intimidate the writer

of the blog.

(i) The impression that Mr. Csurgo "or one of his associates" is trying

to intimidate the writer/contributor of the Battle Light Blog, Mr.

Wells, is false and defamatory.

(ii) Rather, Mr. Csurgo, has pursued his response through the court

system and this claim is in furtherance of that aim.

i) On June 27, 2010,, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL

was "implicated in the illegal selling of shares of various other U.K.-based

companies"

Wi This is a false statement and defamatory of MLAL.

() On June 27, 2010,, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL

"was (and perhaps still is) making incredible sums of money off of the

companies that they are promoting through their illegal business activity

in the U.K.".

Wi This is a false statement and defamatory of MLAL.

00i MLAL is not engaged in any "illegal business activity" in the UK or

otherwise.

(k) On July 24, 2010, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that:

0i) Ancan Resources PLC ("Ancan") had two directors, including

"Julius Csurgo of Merger Law";

(ii) The Idea Fund One Ltd. an investor in Ancan;

(iii) Fastweb, an Italian-based subsidiary of a Swiss telecom company

(Swisscom) has been caught up in a tax fraud and money

laundering investigationj

(iv) The Idea Fund One Ltd. was "implicated in this Fastweb money

laundering scheme".

(v) The alleged scam "is operated in part by the mafia. The mafia.

Remember that."

NOi "...we also find the same outfit [The Idea Fund One Ltd] holding a

major share in a Merger Law Associates company. How

incredibly interesting."

(vii) The clear implication in these series of statements is that MLAL

and/or Mr. Csurgo is involved in a tax fraud and money laundering

scheme and even associated with the mafia.

(viii) Neither Mr. Csurgo nor MLAL is engaged in any such scheme and

neither is in any way associated with the mafia. The allegations

and their implications are false and defamatory.

() On July 27, 2o:Lo, it was published on the Battle Light Blog stated that:

0I) It is easy to make money on the stock market if "You build a

pretty website, float some capital, and then you sell, sell, sell

some shares."

00i Such an approach was used with a company called Resos Pharma

PLC which "uses a dummy address, used by many a Merger Law

company";

(iii) Resos Pharma PLC and, by implication, MLAL, creates "sand

castle operation[s] - [where] you build something that looks nice,

but that it totally lacking in substance."

Oiv) The Battle Light Blog has shown the reader "many examples of

this sort of scheme involving a company called Merger Law

Associates Ltd.";

(y) Mr. Csurgo (and Mr. Shea) sold their shares to persons who,

based upon the allegations in the Battle Light Blog, are at

addresses that do not actually exist and that the two individuals

do not even exist.

(vi) The clear implication in the Battle Light Blog is that MLAL is

involved in using "dummy addresses", involved in "schemes" and

is earning money improperly and illegally.

(0i) Further, it suggests that MLAL and/or Mr. Csurgo are using non-

existent persons at non-existent addresses as buyers of

companies and, thereby, builds on the suggestions made in

earlier Blogs that either Mr. Csurgo or MLAL are involved in

fraudulent activity. The allegations and their implications are, yet

again, false and defamatory.

(viii) Further, by directing the reader to links to the previous

defamatory posts regarding MLAL and Mr. Csurgo, the Battle

Light Blog and Mr. Wells effectively repeat their earlier

defamatory statements and republish them.

14. Hereinafter, the aforesaid statements are sometimes referred to collectively as

the "Defamatory Statements".

15. The Defamatory Statements were made by Mr. Wells with the knowledge that

such statements were untrue or were made by Mr. Wells with reckless

indifference as to whether they were true or not.

16. In particular, but without limiting the generality of their natural and ordinary

meanings and innuendloes, the Defamatory Statements constitute malicious

fabrications and falsehoods which meant and were understood to mean:

(a) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are dishonest;

(b) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are untrustworthy;

(c) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are engaged in criminal and/or illegal

activity;

(d) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are willing to act unethically to furthe r

their own agendas and to do so at the expense of others. The

Defamatory Words are false and defamatory of the Mr. Csurgo and/or

MLAL both in and of themselves and in the context of the articles in

which they appear, both taken individually and as a whole.

(e) that the plaintiffs have acted dishonestly.

Liability

17. The Defamatory Statements published by Mr. Wells on the Battle Light Blog are

false and defamatory, expressly and by way of innuendo, in that they

individually and/or collectively suggest that:

(a) Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL have no or substandard moral ethics;

(b) Mr. Csurgo, and/or MLAL is/are willing to act unethically tofurther

his/their own personal agenda at the expense of others; and

(c) Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL is/are dishonest and untrustworthy.

28. Mr. Wells knew or ought to have known at the time the Defamatory Statements

were made that such comments would lower the reputation of the plaintiffs in

the estimation of those who became aware of the comments and would expose

the plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Mr. Wells also knew or ought to

have known at the time the Defamatory Statements were made that such

comments would cause the plaintiffs to be shunned and avoided.

29. It is known to the defendants, but unknown to Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL, which

clients or potential clients of Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL have accessed or seen the

Slog in question.

20. However, many of MLAL and/or Csurgo's customers conduct internet searches

to find out information about MLAL and/or Csurgo. A number of these

customers have found the Battle Light Slog and, as a direct result of the

Defamatory Statements published on such blog, have postponed or entirely

cancelled business dealings that they were going to engage in with Csurgo

and/or MLAL. As a result, Csurgo and MLAL have to date lost or may yet lose

business totalling.U.Ss4,ooo,ooo.

21. Such damages are entirely or substantially the result of the Defamatory

Statements made by Mr. Wells on the Battle Light Blog and as such Mr. Wells is

liable to MLAL and Mr. Csurgo for such losses.

22. Under the Blogger TOS, Wells agreed that he is

(a) "responsible for [his] own use of the Service, for any posts [he] make,

and for any consequences thereof '; and that

(b) he "will use the Service in compliance with all applicable local, state,

national, and international laws, rules and regulations".

23. In addition, Mr. Wells agreed "...to abide by the Blogger Content Policy

(http://www.blogger.com/content.g) and the rules and restrictions therein [and,

agreed that] Google may, in its sole discretion, modify or revise the Blogger

Content Policy at any time, and [Mr. Wells did] agree to be bound by such

modifications or revisions."

24. Under the Blogger TOS, "Violation of any of the [Blogger TOS], including the

Blogger Content Policy (http://www.blogger.com/content.g), may result in

immediate termination of this Agreement, and may subject you to state and

federal penalties and other legal. consequences- Google.reserves the-ight'.-but-

shall have no obligation, to investigate your use of the Service in order to (a)

determine whether a violation of the Agreement has occurred or (b) comply

with any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request.

25. Much of the content of Blogger.com and Blogspot.com -- including the contents

of specific postings -- is provided by and is the responsibility of the person or

people who made such postings. Google does not monitor the content of

Blogger.comn and Blogspot.com, and takes no responsibility for such content.

Instead, Google merely provides access to such content as a service to you.

26. in general, Google states that it does not monitor the content of blogs on the

Blogger Service and merely provides access to such content. However, as

described below, Google was put on notice regarding the contents of the Battle

Light blog, and its defamatory content.

27 Google therefore is liable as a disseminator or transmitter of the Defamatory

Statements as, through the Blogger Service, Google has assisted Mr. Wells in his

publication and distribution of the Defamatory Statements.

28. Further, the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996 does not afford

Google any protection in the circumstances as the said Act does not preclude

liability where the provider or user knew or had reason to know that the matter

was defamatory.,-that is, -common law. distributor liability.. As Google was -put on

notice of the Defamatory Statements on or about JUlY25, 20-10, Google is liable

as distributor, at a minimum, from that point forward.

Damage incurred by Mr. Csurgo

29. Mr. Csurgo has been in the business of advising and assisting companies in

restructuring and refinancing and providing shell companiesto businesses

looking to list their shares publicly for the last 25 years.

30. Listing securities on public markets is a highly regulated industry. In order to

ensure that he can properly and, as a result, it is highly important for Mr. Csurgo

and any business through which he operates (such as MLAL) to maintain a

reputation of honesty and good faith.

31. In fact, Mr. Csurgo built a excellent reputation in the industry and his reputation

has followed him to MLAL where he is currently employed as President of the

company.

32. As the President of MLAL, and a business and community leader, Mr. Csurgo

provides services to clients, whose executives and employees consider his

reputation when deciding whether to do business with him and MLAL.

33. His prospective client base includes companies in disparate industries and

countries around-the -world. Giventhe-wide rangeof-potential-customer-!,-rmany

of whom will be dealing with Mr. Csurgo for the first time in any given

transaction, Mr. Csurgo's reputation for integrity and honesty is essential to his

success.

34. Mr. Wells's postings on the Battle Light sight were calculated to and did in fact

disparage Mr. Csurgo's professional reputation, a reputation which has been

over 15 years in the making.

35. Mr. Csurgo has and will in the future suffer damage to his feelings and damage

to his reputation as a result of the Defamatory Statements. He has also lost and

will continue to lose income as a result of the libel. As such, Mr. Csurgo is

entitled to be compensated in damages.

Damage Incurred by MLAL

36. MLAL was established in November 2005 with Mr. Csurgo as the managing

director".

37. While Mr. Csurgo has grown the company and, in the process, has engaged

numerous consultants, partners, advisors since the company was established.

MLAL's name and growing reputation are largely synonymous with that of Mr.

Pae23

Csurgo. Further, the discussions about Mr. Csurgo on the Battlelight Blog

purport to -discuss--his; business model which, in effect, relates to MLAL

Accordingly, the false and defamatory statements made by Mr. Wells about Mr.

Csurgo, the individual responsible for supervising and conducting the affairs of

MLAL, inevitably affects the business reputation of MLAL as well.

38. MLAL has developed, within a short period of time, a strong reputation in the

business community for the creation and development of shell corporations and

the obtaining of listings for said corporations on the Frankfurt bourse, in

Germany, and in the other services that it provides.

39. By making the Defamatory Statements on the blog as set out above, Mr. Wells

intended to and did in fact disparage the goodwill of MLAL, which is essential to

the success of its business.

40. The Battle Light postings by Mr. Wells were also calculated to and did in fact

disparage the professional reputation of MLAL.

42. MLAL has also lost income as a result of the libel.

42. MLAL has and will in the future suffer damage to its reputation. MLAL has also

lost income as a result of the libel. As such, MLAL is entitled to be compensated

in damages.

Aggravated Damages

43. The defo-dant Mr. Wells has aggravated the damag~es caused to Mr. Csurgo and

MLAL by:

(a) making the aforementioned blog entries maliciously and in bad faith,

with knowledge that its contents were false, or with reckless disregard

for its truth or falsity;

(b) taking no steps or inadequate steps prior to posting the aforementioned

blog entries to confirm their accuracy;

(c) failing to retract or apologize for posting the aforementioned blog

entries; and/or

(d) continuing to make false and defamatory entries on the aforementioned

blog after being notified of the Defamatory Statements.

Punitive Damages

44. The malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of Mr. Wells warrants an

award of punitive or exemplary damages to ensure that Mr. Wells is

appropriately punished for his conduct and deterred from such conduct in the

future.

Pa9e 25

Injunction

45. SO 10Io th6DfaMat01Y Statem&-its- remain-accessib-le to persons-surfing the-

web, damages will continue to incur to Mr. Csurgo and MLAL as business

associates and prospective business associates will view the Defamatory

Statements and, as a result, those statements will continue to damage the

reputations of Mr. Csurgo and MLAL.

46. Google, under the Blogger TOS, has the right to "in its sole discretion, at any

time and for any reason, terminate the [Blogger] Service [with any licensee],

terminate [the licensee's] Agreement, or suspend or terminate [the licensee's]

account".

47. In addition, under the Google TOS:

5. ... Google reserves the right at all times to remove orrefuse to distribute any content on the (Blogger] Service,such as content which violates the terms of thisAgreement. Google also reserves the right to access, read,preserve, and disclose any information as it reasonablybelieves is necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law,regulation, legal process or governmental request, (b)enforce this Agreement, including investigation ofpotential violations hereof, (c) detect, prevent, orotherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, (d)respond to user support requests, or (e) protect the rights,property or safety of Google, its users and the public.Google will not be responsible or liable for the exercise ornon-exercise of its rights under this Agreement.

13.3 Google may at any time, terminate its legalagreement with [the licensee, Mr. Wells] if:

(A) [the licensee, Mr. Wells) ha[s] breached any provisionof the Terms (or have acted in manner which clearly

..shows that-you do not-inte-nd to, or. are-unable- to complywith the provisions of the Terms); ..

48. Further, under the Blogger TOS:

.... Google reserves the right at all times to remove orrefuse to distribute any content on the [Blogger] Service,such as content which violates the terms of thisAgreement. Google also reserves the right to access, read,preserve, and disclose any information as it reasonablybelieves is necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law,regulation, legal process or governmental request, (b)enforce this Agreement, including investigation ofpotential violations hereof, (c) detect, prevent, orotherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, (d)respond to user support requests, or (e) protect the rights,property or safety of Google, its users and the public.Google will not be responsible.

49. Google has the ability to immediately stop the ongoing damages to Mr. Csurgo

and MLAL but, to date, has refused to do so. However, as set out in the Blogger

Service:

"We do not remove allegedly defamatory content fromwww.google.com or any other U.S. dot com domains. USdomain sites such as Google.com, Blogger, Page Creator,etc. are sites regulated only by U.S. law. Given this fact,and pursuant to Section 230(c) of the CommunicationsDecency Act, we do not remove allegedly defamatorymaterial from U.S. domains. The only exception to thisrule is if the material has been found to be defamatoryby a court, as evidenced by a court order. [Emphasisadded.]

50. In any event, the language of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act

fundamentally states thatInternetserviceslike- Google.com, Blogger and many.

of Google's other services are republishers and not the publisher of that content.

Therefore, these sites are not held liable for any allegedly defamatory, offensive

or harassing content published on the site.

51. Google has investigated Mr. Wells' use of the Blogger Service and failed to take

steps to ensure he complies with applicable law or has failed to do such

investigation despite being put on notice of Mr. Wells' violations of the law by

making the said Defamatory Statements.

52. Further, it appears that Google will not remove the Defamatory Statements

from the Blogger Service without a court order requiring it to do so. The

plaintiffs accordingly ask for the requested injunctive relief to prevent ongoing

damage to their respective reputations.

53. To the extent Mr. Wells' publications on the Battle Light blog are a ubroadcast"

as defined in the Libel and SlanderAct, notice under the said Act was provided to

the defendants as required by Section 5 of that Act.

54. This claim may, without a court order, be served outside Ontario as the

proceeding against the parties consists of a claim or claims,

(a) in respect of a tort committed in Ontario;

(b) in respect of damage sustained in Ontario arising from a tort;

(c) for an injunction ordering a party to do, or refrain from doing, anything

in Ontario or affecting real or personal property in Ontario;

(d) against a person outside Ontario who is a necessary or proper party to a

proceeding properly brought against another person served in Ontario,

and/or

(e) against a person ordinarily resident or carrying on business in Ontario.

5. The plaintiffs request that this action be tried in the City of Toronto.

Fogler, Rubinoff LLPBarristers and Solicitors95 Wellington Street WestSuite 1200

Toronto, ON M5J 2Z9

Michael DonskyDavid LevangieTel: 416.864.9700Fax: 4316.941.8852

Lawyers for the Plaint iffs

MERGER LAW ASSOCIATES LTD. and JULIUS CSURGO and MATTHEW WELLS and GOOGLE, INC. 6Plaintiffs Defendants Cj w - o('O5COUr File No.

ONTA RIOSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Proceedings commenced at Toronto

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Fogler, Rubinoff LIPBarristers and Solicitors95 Wellington Street WestSuite 1200Toronto, ON M5.1 Z9

Michael Donsky (ILSUC # 33235T)David Levangie (LSUC # 571801)

Tel: 416.864.9700Fax: 41L6.941.8852.

Lawyers for the Plaint iffs

merger law assoc v wells and google 109486

Documents