You’ll at least have to prove negligence if you want to sue for libel (assuming you count as a private figure).

Now, I’m not going to actually say that you’re wrong to claim that Google runs Safe Browsing in a negligent manner. But I will say that, if you’re going to go with that, then you’re going to have to say what they neglected to do. Have a human review all their entries? Apple does that, and they get just as many complaints. Get rid of Safe Browsing entirely? It was created to solve real problems, and those problems aren’t just going to go away.

Google has no obligation to list you on their search results or allow access to your site through their browser.

> ctively misrepresenting your website as dangerous and deceptive to your customers is sort of libelous and clearly damaging.

Except the OP even said someone uploaded a malicious file that was put in a place publicly accessible. Google was not being libelous. There was a malicious file.

> allow access to your site through their browser.

So what? Google has no right to tell falsehoods about your website as a whole to your customers, though.

I'm pretty sure google will not blacklist github.com if one malicious file is hosted on there, either.

None of the links provided by Google in their console were said to be malicious, either. So what then?

Although if it was a mistake without a malicious file, I can see a libel lawsuit going.