The suggested plantiff is the misassociated pastor. Google is effectively saying that the pastor wrote the book, which is untrue and Google was notified of this and acknowledged it, and then they started claiming the association again.
This claim is damaging to the pastor in a clear way, and could probably get damages.
I would agree that the author would seem to have a harder case though as damages would be harder to show.
>That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".
I thought it was quite clear that I was suggesting that the pastor should sue, and that it was a tort case for her. I was expecting that being a pastor - which is a semi-public role that it might have affected her work.
At any rate a tort is in no way like a book review and if you have a case where your work has been affected that may very well figure into the damages you will be awarded - if it didn't every medical malpractice suit wouldn't mention how their client was unable to work for months after the surgery.
This does not seem to fall under First Amendment protection.
"Having access to the courts" is in practice _just not a remedy_ for an individual fighting a $100 billion company.
> it's obviously a tort case
Yes.
> and probably has affected her ability to work as well
That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".
> so I suppose that means Google should end up paying a lot.
Unless the woman was already making good money as a writer before the picture, and suddenly wasn't, Google will pay _nothing_.
My guess would be that Google would stall the lawsuit for a year or two, then turn off that picture and pay the woman a few grand, but not legal fees.
Then in the next software rev, some picture returns, and she's back where she started.