Google litigation
has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.
Privacy
United States v. Google Inc.
United States vs. Google Inc. is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission has ever historically won. The FTC and Google consented to the entry of the stipulated order to resolve the dispute which arose from Google's violation of its privacy policy. In this case, the FTC found Google liable for misrepresenting "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser". It was reached after the FTC considered that through the placement of advertising tracking cookies in the Safari web browser, and while serving targeted advertisements, Google violated the 2011 FTC's administrative order issued in FTC v. Google Inc.Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González was a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties.Hibnick v. Google, Inc.
Hibnick v Google was a class action suit against Google in 2010. The suit accused Google of breaching several electronic communications laws with the launch of their new product Google Buzz. Google Buzz was a social media network that automatically plugged into Gmail.Joffe v. Google, Inc.
Joffe v. Google, Inc. was a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. that entered official Supreme Court jurisdiction in November 2010. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Legislation segments when they intruded on the seemingly “public” wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google appealed multiple times, the courts ruled in favor of Joffe.Mosley v SARL Google
Mosley v SARL Google was a 2013 French court case in which former President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile Max Mosley attempted to make the internet search engine Google remove images of him engaging in a sado-masochistic sex act with several prostitutes. The publication of the images in the British newspaper The News of the World was litigated in Mosley v News Group Newspapers and resulted in Mr Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google, Inc.
Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc. was a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holding that Google had to reveal the account information of a Gmail user who had been mistakenly sent sensitive information from Rocky Mountain Bank.Patacsil v. Google,. Inc.
Patacsil v. Google,. Inc.In re Google Location History Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-05062, U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The law firm Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C. was appointed interim class counsel in this privacy case by users of Google Maps or other Google applications, alleging that Google deliberately collected personal information from individuals in order to generate millions of dollars in revenue by covertly recording contemporaneous location data about users on their mobile devices who had specifically opted out of such tracking.
Advertising
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc. was a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The court concluded that, pending the outcome of a jury trial, Google AdWords may be in violation of trademark law.Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement. The case involved Rescuecom. Prior to the case's resolution, Google recommended the 'Rescuecom' trademark to businesses, that were buying keywords through Google's AdWords product.Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc
Rosetta Stone v. Google was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that challenged the legality of Google's AdWords program. The Court overturned a grant of summary judgment for Google that had held Google AdWords was not a violation of trademark law.Goddard v. Google, Inc.
Goddard v. Google, Inc. is a case in which Jenna Goddard alleged that she was harmed by Google as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and dismissed the complaint.Censorship
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
Garcia v. Google, Inc. is a case where Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website, YouTube, to have the controversial film, Innocence of Muslims, taken down from the site. A California district court denied Garcia's motion for preliminary injunction, but, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, ordered YouTube to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction.Russia v. Google, Inc.
On October 31, 2024, Google was ordered to pay $20 decillion by the Russian government following the removal of 17 pro-Kremlin YouTube channels, several of which have been blocked since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov defended the large sum of money, as "it is rather filled with symbolism," and stated that " should not restrict our broadcasters on their platform. This should be a reason for the Google leadership to pay attention to this and improve the situation."Defamation
Bleyer v. Google Inc
On August 12, 2014, the Supreme Court of New South Wales found in the case of Bleyer v Google Inc NSWSC 897 that Google was not a publisher of automated search results before receiving complaints, and permanently stayed defamation proceedings on proportionality grounds. Roland Bleyer sued Google over search results that had been viewed by only three people, but Justice McCallum ruled that with estimated legal costs of against minimal publication and likely unenforceable judgment, the proceedings were "vastly disproportionate" and constituted an abuse of process.The decision established Australia's first application of the proportionality principle in defamation law, allowing courts to dismiss cases where litigation costs far exceed the interests at stake, and became a landmark precedent for when internet companies can be held legally responsible for content created by others. The case influenced subsequent defamation law reforms including specific search engine exemptions in Australia's 2024 Model Defamation Provisions.
Duffy v. Google Inc
On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of South Australia found in the case of Duffy v Google Inc SASC 170 that Google Autocomplete perpetuated a defamation of the plaintiff for which Google was liable.Defteros v. Google LLC
On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria found in the case of Defteros v Google LLC VSC 219 that Google could be held liable for defamation in Australia. "The Court held that Google does publish webpages reached by clicking on hyperlinks within Google search results. The resolution of the publication issue was a necessary step to Google’s liability; Google succeeded on some defences and failed on others. Defteros was awarded $40,000."On August 17, 2022, Australia's highest court ruled that Google was not liable. A joint statement by Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justice Jacqueline Gleeson said, “In reality, a hyperlink is merely a tool which enables a person to navigate to another webpage."