Google litigation
Privacy
United States v. Google Inc.
United States vs. Google Inc. is a case in which the
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
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.[11][12][13] 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
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.[14] [15] [16]
Advertising
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc.
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. was a
Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc
Rosetta Stone v. Google was a decision of the
Goddard v. Google, Inc.
Goddard v. Google, Inc. is a case in which Jenna Goddard alleged that she was harmed by
Censorship
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
Garcia v. Google, Inc. is a case where Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website,
Defamation
Duffy v. Google Inc
On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of South Australia found in the case of Duffy v Google Inc[22] [2015] 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
On August 17, 2022, Australia's highest court ruled that Google was not liable.[25] 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."[26]
Intellectual property
Agence France Presse
In March 2005,
Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. is a
Authors Guild, Inc. V. Google, Inc.
Authors Guild v. Google was a
Field v. Google, Inc.
Field v. Google, Inc. is a case where Google successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.
Mian Mian lawsuit
In December 2009, Chinese writer Mian Mian filed a lawsuit against the company, for scanning her entire novel without notifying her or paying her for copyright permission.[33] Google removed Mian's work from its online library shortly after learning of the suit. In January 2013, a Chinese court ordered Google to pay Mian compensation of 5,000 yuan (US$800) for scanning her works without permission.[34]
Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC vs. Google, Inc
In 2016, a Texas jury awarded Bedrock Computer Technologies $5 million in a
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. is a dispute related to Oracle's
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., et al. was a U.S. court case for Google to stop creating and distributing
Roey Gorodish v. Waze & Google Israel
A
In January 2020, Roey Gorodish and Baruch Krotman, filed a regular lawsuit against the company.[50]
Genericide of "google"
In 2017, David Elliot and Chris Gillespie argued before the
Discrimination
Google is currently fighting a lawsuit filed by the US labor department claiming gender discrimination. Officials of Google said it was too financially burdensome and logistically challenging to hand over salary records that the government requested in order to investigate.[52] A judge has however ordered Google to hand over salary records to the government in this ongoing investigation by the US Department of Labor.[53]
James Damore et al. v. Google, LLC
In a lawsuit filed January 8, 2018, multiple employees and job applicants alleged Google discriminated against a class defined by their “conservative political views[,] male gender[,] and/or […] Caucasian or Asian race”.[54]
Arne Wilberg v. Google, Inc.
On January 29, 2018, YouTube technical recruiter Arne Wilberg filed a suit accusing Google “of systematically discriminating in favor of job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men.”[55]
Kelly Ellis et al VS. Google, Inc.
On August 14, 2017, three former employees of Google have filed a class action lawsuit against the internet company, alleging a pattern of discrimination against women workers, including systemically lower pay than their male counterparts. [56]
Microtransactions
In-app purchases class action
In 2014 a parent filed a class action lawsuit against Google for "in-app" purchases, which are
Epic Games v. Google
On August 13, 2020,
In October 2021, Google launched a counter-suit against Epic Games, asserting that Epic was in violation of its Play Store contract terms when it added a new Fortnite version without its payment system.[60]
Match Group v. Google
On May 9, 2022,
Antitrust
Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors.
A 7-year antitrust probe by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was launched into Google's Android dominant business in India.[62]
The CCI found that Google had broken EU antitrust rules when it
United States v. Google
In 2020, the US Department of Justice and a group of 38 state attorneys general sued Google for monopolizing digital advertising technology. They accused the company of acquiring competitors, locking in clients with its platforms, and exploiting or distorting auction mechanisms for ads.[64] It has also been accused of paying billions each year to mobile network operators and smartphone manufacturers to ensure that Google's service remains as the default search engine on their devices. Microsoft testified at the trial saying that even revenue-sharing deals at 100% or more for phone makers were at times turned down by them, preventing Microsoft Bing from scaling and improving the quality of its search results. Google's lawyer questioned whether it was money or quality that has made it difficult for Bing to challenge Google.[65]
Law enforcement
Gonzales v. Google
On January 18, 2006, the
See also
- High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
- Smartphone patent wars
- European Union vs. Google
- Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.
References
- ^ Hafner, Katie (23 October 2006). "We're Google. So Sue Us". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
- ^ "In House Playbook 2014" (PDF). The American Lawyer. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 2015-03-20.
- ^ "About - Google". about.google. Archived from the original on 9 February 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
- ^ Forden, Sara. "Google Judge Accepts $22.5 Million FTC Privacy Settlement". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 2014-03-18. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
- ^ Federal Trade Commission-FTC (August 9, 2012). "Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of Apple's Safari Internet Browser". Archived from the original on March 18, 2014. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
- ^ Federal Trade Commission-FTC (November 20, 2012). "Statement by FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director David Vladeck Regarding Judges Approval of Google Safari Settlement". Archived from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
- ^ "EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case". BBC News. 13 May 2014. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
- CJEU. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2014-09-18. Retrieved 2015-03-16.
- New York Times. Archivedfrom the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- ^ Julia Powles (15 May 2014). "What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling". Wired.co.uk. Archived from the original on 16 May 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- ^ Streib, Lauren. "Harvard Law Student Files Class Action Suit Against Google Over Buzz" Archived 2014-11-17 at the Wayback Machine, Business Insider, 18 February 2010. Retrieved on 08 October 2014.
- ^ "Local class action complaint filed over Google Buzz" Archived 2014-10-23 at the Wayback Machine, "SF Gate", 17 February 2010.
- ^ Heussner, Ki Mae. [1] Archived 2020-08-11 at the Wayback Machine "Google Buzz Draws Class-Action Suit From Harvard Student"], "ABC News", 18 February 2010.
- ^ "Case 5:18-cv-05062-EJD - Courthouse News Service" (PDF). Court House News. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
- ^ "AP Exclusive: Google tracks your movements, like it or not". Associated Press. 20 April 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
- ^ "Google Tracking Lawsuit: Location Stored W/O Permission". Retrieved 19 August 2022.
- ^ Google, Inc. v. American Blind and Wallpaper Factory, Inc. No. 03-cv-05340 JF (RS) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007).
- ^ Garcia v. Google Archived 2014-07-04 at the Wayback Machine, no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014). Accessed November 3, 2014.
- ^ Chappell, Bill (18 May 2015). "Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved 2020-06-12.
- ^ "Controversial 'Innocence of Muslims' Ruling Reversed By Appeals Court". The Hollywood Reporter. 18 May 2015. Archived from the original on 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-06-12.
- ^ "Garcia v. Google" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-05-21. Retrieved 2020-06-12.
- ^ "DUFFY v GOOGLE INC [2015] SASC 170 (27 October 2015)". AustLii. 19 August 2019. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
- ^ "Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219". Jade.io. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
- ^ Douglas M., Tharby A., and Border J. (May 7, 2020). "Google as publisher of everything defamatory on the internet: Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219". Bennett + Co. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Google wins defamation battle as Australia's high court finds tech giant not a publisher". The Guardian. 2022-08-17. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
- ^ "Australia's top court finds Google not liable for defamation". Reuters. 2022-08-17. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
- SSRN 1221642.
- ^ "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Viacom against Google". Docket Alarm, Inc. Archived from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
- ^ "Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment that Defendant YouTube Qualifies for Protection of 17 U. S. C. § 512 (c) Against all of Plaintiffs' Claims for Direct and Secondary Copyright Infringement". Docket Alarm, Inc. Archived from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
- ^ "Granting Defendant YouTube's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Entering Judgement that Defendants are Protected by the Safe-Harbor Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) from all of Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement Claims". Docket Alarm, Inc. April 18, 2013. Archived from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
- ^ "Docket Information for Viacom v. YouTube". Archived from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
- ^ Google Wins: Court Issues a Ringing Endorsement of Google Books Archived 2015-02-21 at the Wayback Machine, Publishers weekly, Nov 14, 2013
- ^ "Writer sues Google for copyright infringement". Chinadaily.com.cn. December 16, 2009. Archived from the original on February 5, 2013. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
- ^ "Google told to pay Chinese writer US$800 for copyright violation" Archived 2014-11-06 at the Wayback Machine, Want China Times (Taiwan), January 20, 2013. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
- ^ Idiotic Anti-Linux & Google Patent Decision Archived May 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. ZDNet. Retrieved on May 29, 2011.
- ^ / Media – Google loses Linux patent lawsuit Archived September 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Ft.com (April 23, 2011). Retrieved on May 29, 2011.
- ^ "ORDER granting 829 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC, Google Inc for Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al". Justia Dockets & Filings. Archived from the original on December 29, 2016.
- ^ Samuels, Julie (2012-05-31). "No Copyrights on APIs: Judge Defends Interoperability and Innovation". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-12. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
- ^ McSherry, Corynne (2014-05-09). "Dangerous Decision in Oracle v. Google: Federal Circuit Reverses Sensible Lower Court Ruling on APIs". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-05. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-08-30. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Higgins, Parker (2016-05-26). "EFF Applauds Jury Verdict In Favor of Fair Use in Oracle v. Google". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-10-21. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-12. Retrieved 2020-10-27.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Docket for 18-956". Supreme Court of the United States. Archived from the original on 2021-04-05. Retrieved 2021-04-05.
- ^ "18-956 Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2021-04-05. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-04-05. Retrieved 2021-04-05.
- ^ "Waze – Copyrights and licenses". Archived from the original on March 4, 2011. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ "Accountant Sues Waze for Allegedly Stolen Code". tmcnet.com. March 31, 2014. Archived from the original on May 2, 2014. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
- ^ "Waze founder in 2006: Maps belong to the community". Haaretz. March 31, 2014. Archived from the original on May 3, 2014. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
- ^ "$1B exit and you don't cut us in? No Waze Jose!". Geektime.com. March 30, 2014. Archived from the original on May 2, 2014. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
- ^ "Supreme court dismisses suit as baseless". law.co.il. February 2, 2019. Archived from the original on February 12, 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2019.
- ^ גרינצייג, אבישי (2020-01-29). "המפתחים של Waze נגד המייסד: "ניכס לעצמו פרויקט שלא היה שלו"". Globes. Retrieved 2022-08-17.
- ^ "Elliott v. Google, Inc., No. 15-15809 (9th Cir. 2017)". Justia Law. Archived from the original on 2017-12-01. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
- ^ Levin, Sam (26 May 2017). "Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expensive to get wage data". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 May 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ Levin, Sam (17 July 2017). "Google told to hand over salary details in gender equality court battle". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-07-06. Retrieved 2018-08-21.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "18-CIV-00442 - ARNE WILBERG vs. GOOGLE, INC, et al - Recruitment - Discrimination". Scribd. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
- ^ Google Gender Pay Lawsuit
- ^ a b Gibbs, Samuel (11 March 2014). "Google facing US lawsuit over $66 of in-app purchases". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ Brandom, Russell (13 August 2020). "Epic is suing Google over Fortnite's removal from the Google Play Store". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on 14 August 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2020.
- ^ Statt, Nick (13 August 2020). "Epic Games is suing Apple". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on 13 August 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2020.
- ZDNet. Retrieved December 21, 2021.
- ^ Hatmaker, Taylor (May 10, 2022). "Match Group sues Google over 'monopoly power' in Android app payments". techcrunch.com. Retrieved May 12, 2022.
- ^ a b c Hollister, Sean (27 June 2017). "The Epic v. Google lawsuit finally makes sense". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on 14 August 2020. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
- ^ Kaira, Aditya. "India antitrust probe finds Google abused Android dominance, report shows". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-12-21.
- ^ "Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies". Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of Justice. 2023-01-24.
- ^ Bartz, Diane. "Microsoft executive says Google deals kept Bing small". Reuters.
- ^ "Gonzales: Google suit no invasion of privacy". Orange County Register. January 21, 2006.
- ^ Gonzales v. Google, Inc. Archived April 8, 2016, at the Wayback Machine January 18, 2006.