Does Google Maps owe you a duty of care?

(Photo by Steve Rhodes, CC BY-NC-SA.)

I've found Google maps to be incredibly useful on my recent trip to San Francisco. I've come to rely on it. Google evidently encourage me to rely on it - there are trains all over SF advertising their new public transport integration (http://maps.google.com/bayarea), which, for the most part, works really well.

The problem comes when it is completely and horrendously incorrect. California has a very low tax rate on alocohol, and I was looking for a BevMo to take some bottles back home. I used Google's public transport planner and came up with what looks like a reasonable trip from the SF CBD to a store close by: map

My first problem was not checking the terrain. Not being local to SF, I didn't realise that Pioneer Park was in fact Coit Tower, and would require a very steep walk up Filbert St. That's ok, it was worth the walk, so we headed up.

When we arrived at the top of Montgomery St, we seriously began to doubt whether anyone would build a liquor warehouse on the top of a practically inaccessible hill. We spent a great deal of time walking along Montgomery looking for the mythical store, and ended up walking back down the hill to check on the other side, closer to the wharves, before concluding that we must have incorrectly remembered the street number, and the shop must have been further South than we looked.

It seems my second mistake (really, my first), was trusting Google maps at all. I looked again, and there was a review on the search for BevMo, which shows someone else who had been confused: Eric says,

“I have no idea where Google is getting its information, but there is no Beverages & More at this address. The address they've given is for an apartment building in a residential neighborhood. There aren't even any businesses close by (with the exception of a hillside restaurant). This location is difficult to find, hard to reach, and will leave you sorely disappointed when you arrive. If you're looking for a Bevmo, don't waste your time going here!”

Wish I'd read that first.

Is it reasonably foreseeable to Google that I may suffer damage if they supply me with incorrect information?¹⁾ I think it's fairly clear that reliance on incorrect information could cause some damage, although I wouldn't really like to have to argue for compensation for damages for 2 hours walking around like a headless chook. The question then becomes - is my reliance reasonable? Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity?²⁾

I think that you'd be hard pressed to argue that Google generally owes a duty to provide completely accurate information. However, where Google Maps are actively encouraging commuters to rely on their service (eg, by painting entire trains blue with advertisements for their new transit integration), I think that they may be coming dangerously close to acquiring a duty of care. I would think that duty would be strongest with regards to the actual timetabling information, but could it extend to the entire trip planner?

The only disclaimer that is even close to readily visible on Google Maps pages is the text:

These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, or other events may cause road conditions to differ from the map results.

I think that this would be fairly limited to temporary scheduling changes. I am doubtful that it would extend to the situation where the destination doesn't exist at all.

There are other purported disclaimers, linked to as 'terms and conditions' from the bottom of the map page. If these are validly incorporated (remember, they're only browse-wrap, and the terms can only be incorporated if there is sufficient notice), they state, at the first linked level:

The Google Maps service includes search results such as business listings, images, and related information provided by third parties. Additionally, you may choose to access other third party content made available in Google Maps through services such as Google Gadgets. Google makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by these third parties. Your use of third party content may be subject to additional terms that can be found on our Legal Notices page.

And at the bottom of the referenced page:

When you search for local listings, Google displays business listings which may be supplied by Acxiom or infoUSA. This information is proprietary to those corporations and is protected under U.S. copyright law and international treaty provisions. This information is licensed for your personal or professional use and may not be resold or provided to others. You may not distribute, sell, rent, sublicense, or lease such information, in whole or in part to any third party; and you will not make such information available in whole or in part to any other user in any networked or time-sharing environment, or transfer the information in whole or in part to any computer other than the PC used to access this information.

The magic words are “Google makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by these third parties.”

The problem here is that there is no indication that the content is provided by a third party and not Google itself. When you search Google maps, as I did, for “BevMo, SF”, you are presented with a number of results, and no indication that they were user generated or are submitted by trusted third parties. In these circumstances, I think there is a valid argument that the disclaimers aren't effective - first, not validly incorporated, and second, if they are, it is not clear that these are third party listings.

Which leaves us with Google's catch-all disclaimer, contained in the general Google Terms of Service, cl 14.3 and cl 15.1:

14.3 IN PARTICULAR, GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT TO YOU THAT:
[…]
(C) ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED BY YOU AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, […]

15.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 14.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:

(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;

Once again, if you don't have a Google account, you probably have never seen these before. They're linked off the terms which are linked off the maps pages. If you have a Google account, doubtless you checked the box which said “I agree to the terms of service” without reading the terms themselves. If these are validly incorporated, it would appear that Google may have effectively disclaimed liability.

I think that if Google is going to disclaim liability in this way, it ought to behave more transparently when providing results which it has not validated. A warning to users may be sufficient to encourage them to check the official websites rather than relying on Google's results. But then again, people probably wouldn't. I certainly didn't - I have grown used to Google generally providing accurate results, and had no real reason to doubt that it would this time.

The problem here is that if we impose these high standards on Google, we may well throttle their ability to provide any results - the automated, non-verified searching and presentation of results would seem to be the only way in which Google can provide a service which seeks to be as comprehensive as Maps is. So what's the answer? Unfortunately, it may just be 'searcher beware'…