04/07/26 Editor’s note: For a Spanish translation of this post click here.
Mexico’s highest court is expected to rule in the coming weeks in a seminal case brought by an aggrieved lawyer over a post on Google’s Blogger service that could affect free expression online and the viability of websites that host such speech.
Although the content on Blogger was posted by a third party, Mexican attorney Ulrich Richter Morales sued the underlying service provider Google for defamation and in 2022 obtained damages of over 5 billion Mexican pesos (approximately $260 million USD)—an amount that dwarfs what was considered the landmark case in Mexico to date on “moral damages” (which settled for approximately $1.5 million). Mexico’s Supreme Court is now reviewing the Richter judgment.
The ruling in this case will significantly affect both U.S. and Mexican digital service suppliers, including their ability to protect free expression. An adverse ruling against Google could also put Mexico in breach of its obligations under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA), which provides certain liability protections for online intermediaries. On the other hand, reversing the lower court could establish an important precedent, protecting free expression and the digital rules that undergird it, and cementing key trade principles.
In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Act would require such a lawsuit to be brought against the author of the blog, not the site upon which the blog is published. While Mexico does not have a law equivalent to Section 230, which just marked its thirtieth anniversary, Mexico is a party to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which incorporates core elements of this U.S. law, which ensures that online providers are not held liable for content their users post.
Given the vast scale of user-generated content, the social and technical challenges to monitoring content, and the chilling effect of suppliers attempting to determine the legality of content, a broad limitation on liability is the only way to balance free expression with a viable commercial service.
Free Expression
Parties including the Internet Society and Wikimedia appeared in the Mexican court to explain why intermediary protections are critical to protecting freedom of expression online.
In addition to the economic burden and privacy implications of monitoring and filtering vast quantities of content, the legality of which intermediaries cannot be reasonably expected to determine, establishing such liability inevitably results in the adoption of restrictive content moderation policies and automated tools enforcing them, curbing legitimate speech in an effort to limit liability. This would undermine a core tenet of the internet, which cannot function as an economically viable place for business or a forum for free expression if intermediaries can be found broadly liable for third-party content.
Dangerous Precedent
A ruling against Google in this instance will set a concerning precedent in Mexico that internet intermediaries must validate everything posted by third parties, or face liability.
Even as the Richter case is being considered in Mexico, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the responsibility of online intermediaries in Cox v. Sony. The Cox case was similar in scope and degree of potential damage to the internet had the Court ruled in support of plaintiffs seeking to blame intermediaries for end users’ conduct. In a 7-2 ruling, however, the Justices declared, “a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”
While Cox v. Sony is a case centered around copyright infringement and not defamation, the Justices recognized the serious concerns present in a ruling that would label any company liable of copyright infringement if a third party engaged in infringement on their service, similar to concluding a company is guilty of defamation if a third party user of that company’s service is actually the one doing the defaming.
Trade Policy Implications
The United States, in the first Trump administration, negotiated a provision in the USMCA (Article 19.17) that prevents governments from adopting such policies—enshrining a trade-rule analogous to longstanding U.S. law. Should Mexico’s Supreme Court uphold this judgment against Google, not only would a U.S. company face an extraordinary penalty but it is also likely that Mexico would be in breach of this obligation––an outcome Mexico should seek to avoid in the midst of the USMCA’s ongoing statutory review. The fact that treaties like USMCA have direct effect under Mexican law, based on Article 133 of the Mexican Constitution, underscores the importance of this commitment. If the court rules against Google, however, Mexico could subsequently be subject to dispute settlement under USMCA, and Mexico could find itself facing significant economic penalties.
For Mexico’s Supreme Court the choice is stark: it can affirm freedom of expression, reasonable commercial practices and respect for international trade commitments or it can undermine key principles that support civil society and a vibrant digital marketplace.