Including online to offline; mobile; and automation - reviewing some of these claims, I don't see any negligence or commonality with the kinds of things Pissed Consumer complained about. If motivated by the abuses alleged by Pissed Consumer, Google could simply begin to demonstrate that it is autonomous in its decisions whether or not to remove something. For lawyers and their clients who are now unable to obtain intervention from Google after going through often lengthy and costly litigation, the apparent abrupt change in policy and lack of explanation is
upsetting and confusing. Is this change temporary? Should they continue to resubmit applications later? Should they modify the requests in some way? Does Google fax number list now want different verbiage in court orders? Google is currently silent on the issue. But statements that Google won't act may communicate all that victims can now expect: your removal requests may be futile. Should search engines be immune to defamation removal claims?
To a very large extent, search engines have become the Internet. If something isn't indexed by Google or Bing, or isn't searchable and visible in search engines, it might as well not exist. When people search for information on a topic, they turn to search engines. So if the listings on the first page or two of search results contain false, negative, and damaging material on a topic, that's where people are often most likely to encounter it. Search engines are the starting point, the gateway to the Internet.