A doctor suing Google for defamation over business reviews invited the "robust public criticism" by using "puffery and hyperbole" in his own advertising, the tech giant claims.

Key points: The doctor is suing the tech giant over a series of negative reviews

The doctor is suing the tech giant over a series of negative reviews In its defence, Google argued it published the material as a "subordinate distributor"

In its defence, Google argued it published the material as a "subordinate distributor" The man has elected a trial by jury and the case returns to court next month

The man, whose name is suppressed, claims a series of negative reviews on his Google listing for more than a year to July 2019, meant the number of people viewing his website "substantially declined".

The landmark case raises broader questions about the legal responsibility of review platforms to monitor and act swiftly on allegedly defamatory material uploaded by their users.

The proceedings reached a boiling point in early July, when the doctor secured an injunction against Google in the NSW Supreme Court and a judge ordered a contempt charge be considered after a string of negative reviews remained online.

Google avoided that fate later in July, when a second judge ruled it would be a "squandering of public resources" for the charge to proceed without the court being satisfied it could be proven in light of fresh evidence about when removal requests were made.

According to his statement of claim, the man alleges the imputations carried by various Google reviews were that he had "butchered" patients, was "incompetent", "a fraud", "an illicit drug user" and had "no morals".

Court documents filed on Friday reveal Google — which is owned by its parent company Alphabet and valued at $US859 billion — will argue in its defence it acted reasonably in providing a review platform because the man promoted himself in "extravagant terms".

In the documents Google said the man referred to himself as "a household name" with "unrivalled" expertise and was "an industry leader".

"Advertising and self-promotion in the style engaged in by the plaintiff involves puffery and hyperbole which is not susceptible of proof," the court documents said.

"Yet is intended by the plaintiff to [be] highly successful in attracting [customers]," the defence documents said.

"In promoting himself in [this] manner, the plaintiff necessarily invites robust public criticism and review of his services and the quality of his work, and it is reasonable he should be the subject of such criticism."

Google will argue it published the material as a "subordinate distributor" and did not know, nor should have reasonably known, that the material was defamatory.

The tech giant's legal team told the NSW Supreme Court it created the facility to place business reviews online without consultation of the business "at least sometimes".

Justice Desmond Fagan described that as a "dangerous idea".

Justice Fagan said there were "mental gymnastics" involved in working out where the various removal requests were received because Google employees were stationed in different countries.

Some requests were also made to subsidiary Google Australia, whereas the removals process is handled by Google LLC in the US, and at least part of the delay in removing reviews was due to the Independence Day public holiday.

The man has elected a trial by jury and the case returns to court next month.