Google argues lawsuit concerning UK privacy should be brought in California(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Google argues lawsuit concerning UK privacy should be brought in California
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/google-privacy-claim-uk-british-court-california
9 comments
They also include this in their Terms of Service[1] -
"All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts. " Which basically says if you use Google services you agree that any dispute you have with Google will be litigated in a California court. This particular clause has been upheld several times for Google.
[1] http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
"All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts. " Which basically says if you use Google services you agree that any dispute you have with Google will be litigated in a California court. This particular clause has been upheld several times for Google.
[1] http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
Just because something is in a contract (or indeed a terms of service) doesn't mean it is enforceable - especially in a completely different country.
If Google were a US only corporation then this would be a moot point, but as the aren't they are subject to the laws and courts of the countries where they operate. Given that they are actually in court someone clearly thinks there is a stateable case - it'll be interesting to see what the court decides.
Edit: Here is an update from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10520755/Briton...
If Google were a US only corporation then this would be a moot point, but as the aren't they are subject to the laws and courts of the countries where they operate. Given that they are actually in court someone clearly thinks there is a stateable case - it'll be interesting to see what the court decides.
Edit: Here is an update from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10520755/Briton...
I'm not sure this would even hold up internal to the US.
A state could likely decide that by doing business in that state (eg, having offices located there) that Google was subject to its laws when dealing with residents of that state.
Contracts of adhesion aren't always enforceable.
A state could likely decide that by doing business in that state (eg, having offices located there) that Google was subject to its laws when dealing with residents of that state.
Contracts of adhesion aren't always enforceable.
Begs the question, so what exactly does the Google UK office actually do again?!
Google "operates" in the UK, the second biggest market for advertising revenue yet manages to book their profits in Ireland because that's where their sales are "signed". Yet even that Dublin office has no profit as they have expenses to pay to the tune of billions in IP to a patent-holding Google subsidiary in Bermuda.
This must me a wake up call to quite a lot of people. It used to be that it was only poor countries that got shafted by foreign corporations (e.g. Dow Chemical, Bhopal disaster in India). Now, it's -gasp- happening to us too!
Google "operates" in the UK, the second biggest market for advertising revenue yet manages to book their profits in Ireland because that's where their sales are "signed". Yet even that Dublin office has no profit as they have expenses to pay to the tune of billions in IP to a patent-holding Google subsidiary in Bermuda.
This must me a wake up call to quite a lot of people. It used to be that it was only poor countries that got shafted by foreign corporations (e.g. Dow Chemical, Bhopal disaster in India). Now, it's -gasp- happening to us too!
It might come as a shock to you but people (and corporations) try to win in court, arguing over jurisdiction is an automatic first step - nothing extraordinary is happening here.
And if you need someone to point for you the difference between this no harm money/publicly seeking bullshit lawsuit, and chemical spill disasters then you lack all perspective.
And if you need someone to point for you the difference between this no harm money/publicly seeking bullshit lawsuit, and chemical spill disasters then you lack all perspective.
I agree with your point, but I'm not sure the hostility is really necessary.
It it your perspective that intentionally violating user privacy causes no harm?
Google is not violating anyone's privacy unless you've already decided they're guilty. Moreover, no one's forced to use google services. If anyone is violating people's privacy without their consents, it would be the government.
Whether Google is guilty or not has nothing to do with the seriousness of the accusation which the parent was trying to dismiss, and nowhere do I presume them guilty. However Google settled the same accusation by acknowledging the action and paying a fine to the FCC, so the only question is whether what they have done is illegal, not whether they did it.
Directing attention to the government is a false dichotomy which makes it seem like you're trying to protect Google from scrutiny. Both can be guilty. We don't pardon thieves because they aren't as bad as murderers.
Also nobody being forced to use google's services is irrelevant. The question is whether Google deceived those who did make that choice.
If you think the best remedy is for users to make their own choice about using Google services, don't you want these behaviors to be exposed and publicly scrutinized so that users can make an informed decision?
Directing attention to the government is a false dichotomy which makes it seem like you're trying to protect Google from scrutiny. Both can be guilty. We don't pardon thieves because they aren't as bad as murderers.
Also nobody being forced to use google's services is irrelevant. The question is whether Google deceived those who did make that choice.
If you think the best remedy is for users to make their own choice about using Google services, don't you want these behaviors to be exposed and publicly scrutinized so that users can make an informed decision?
[deleted]
> If they were a US only operation then fair enough - it would seem silly to sue them here in the UK.
That seems a bit odd in a legal way. If a user breaks into Google servers, we don't care where the server is located. Why should the location of the server matter if its the server operators that do the crime? Shouldn't the same laws rule everyone equally?
That seems a bit odd in a legal way. If a user breaks into Google servers, we don't care where the server is located. Why should the location of the server matter if its the server operators that do the crime? Shouldn't the same laws rule everyone equally?
This is a no news article. No jurisdiction is pretty much move one in any dispute. The argument will be rejected and everything will continue on as normal, while the lawyers will be slightly richer.
There are cases in which the jurisdiction argument is valid, but it's made pretty much regardless.
There are cases in which the jurisdiction argument is valid, but it's made pretty much regardless.
> Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants suing Google, said: "Google is very much here in the UK. It has a UK specific site. It has staff here. It sells adverts here. It makes money here. It is ludicrous for it to claim that, despite all of this very commercial activity, it won't answer to our courts."
That does sum up my view on it too.
If there is a case to answer, then given that Google are here in the UK then they are bound to operate within UK law and answer it.
We've long gone beyond the point at which we can pretend that there is no UK presence.
That does sum up my view on it too.
If there is a case to answer, then given that Google are here in the UK then they are bound to operate within UK law and answer it.
We've long gone beyond the point at which we can pretend that there is no UK presence.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/01/google-new...
A billion quid and 4500 employees. Seems a bit much for a country in which you don't make any profit, no?
A billion quid and 4500 employees. Seems a bit much for a country in which you don't make any profit, no?
I am tired of Google behaving like they are untouchable/above others.
Follow the rules everyone follows, you aren't above the law and certainly do not deserve to be treated as a special entity.
Pay your taxes, respect privacy and stop pretending to be saint.
Follow the rules everyone follows, you aren't above the law and certainly do not deserve to be treated as a special entity.
Pay your taxes, respect privacy and stop pretending to be saint.
I do not remember exactly where I read this (so if someone could point me in the right direction I would be grateful), but I thought I read something about U.K. government was working with the U.S. to spy on its people...
If that is true, then why is Google being sued and not the U.K. government?
If that is true, then why is Google being sued and not the U.K. government?
The two issues are totally unconnected.
Google is being sued because it broke the law.
The U.K. Government enacted an unpopular policy that was not illegal. The remedy for this is the ballot box, not the courts.
Google is being sued because it broke the law.
The U.K. Government enacted an unpopular policy that was not illegal. The remedy for this is the ballot box, not the courts.
I think users outside US are under Privacy Disclaimer with Irish Google. So English users should sue in Ireland.
If this works for Google, I imagine I can have a business based in Uruguay that sells weed to the world, and I only have to face court in Uruguay when people claim it's illegal in their country?
> If this works for Google, I imagine I can have a business based in Uruguay that sells weed to the world, and I only have to face court in Uruguay when people claim it's illegal in their country?
I'd imagine this would be perfectly legal if Uruguay has legal provisions that state that shipping weed to other countries is legal. I'd also imagine that if they didn't have such a clause, they'd soon run afoul on various international trade treaties. So good luck... :)
I'd imagine this would be perfectly legal if Uruguay has legal provisions that state that shipping weed to other countries is legal. I'd also imagine that if they didn't have such a clause, they'd soon run afoul on various international trade treaties. So good luck... :)
> I'd imagine this would be perfectly legal if Uruguay has legal provisions that state that shipping weed to other countries is legal.
I'm sure California doesn't have a provision that says collecting user information for people in the UK is legal.
In short, the laws of one region are only concerned with that region, they don't care what happens outside that.. so Google using CA's laws on UK residents is like me using Uruguay's laws on CA residents.
I've always thought a good way to get this stupidity into the headlines would be if this would be if say Saudi Arabia started charging every female that drives a car in the world, or if Australia started charging people for driving on the Right side of the road in North America. Applying the laws of one country onto people in another country is absurd.
I'm sure California doesn't have a provision that says collecting user information for people in the UK is legal.
In short, the laws of one region are only concerned with that region, they don't care what happens outside that.. so Google using CA's laws on UK residents is like me using Uruguay's laws on CA residents.
I've always thought a good way to get this stupidity into the headlines would be if this would be if say Saudi Arabia started charging every female that drives a car in the world, or if Australia started charging people for driving on the Right side of the road in North America. Applying the laws of one country onto people in another country is absurd.
Google has been called "arrogant and immoral" - by whom? the plaintiff?!
Google is arguing about jurisdiction in front of a judge, why is the author doing publicity work for the plaintiff? and why is a routine legal argument news?
Google is arguing about jurisdiction in front of a judge, why is the author doing publicity work for the plaintiff? and why is a routine legal argument news?
why is the author doing publicity work for the plaintiff
Hell, when the UK Prime Minister publicly takes sides in ongoing celebrity court proceedings and announces that he is on "Team Nigella", I think that many journalists probably shrug their shoulders and give up attempting any pretence of balance around court.
Hell, when the UK Prime Minister publicly takes sides in ongoing celebrity court proceedings and announces that he is on "Team Nigella", I think that many journalists probably shrug their shoulders and give up attempting any pretence of balance around court.
The author explains that this statement is by the plaintiff. The argument is news because it would be surprising to much of the public.
Because since the revelations about Google providing the NSA direct access to servers, they are extremely unpopular. Combine that with their reluctance to pax any form of tax, and they have the same public image as an arms dealer.
"Google providing the NSA direct access to servers"
[Citation needed]
The NSA appears to have tapped 3rd party fiber links, and not Google directly. Google is now encrypting data across those links, moving all client access to use https, and advocating for http/2.0 (based on SPDY) to allow only encrypted connections.
The NSA appears to have tapped 3rd party fiber links, and not Google directly. Google is now encrypting data across those links, moving all client access to use https, and advocating for http/2.0 (based on SPDY) to allow only encrypted connections.
The U.K. spys on it's own users and shares it with the U.S (that was also released by Snowden)... I am confused as to why Google is any more to blame than the U.K. government itself.
[deleted]
If the courts decide otherwise then Google has quite a lot of assets here in the UK in the form of Google UK Limited - obviously tiny compared to the US parent but still a pretty substantial organization by any objective measure.
I tend to side with the claimants (I believe that is the correct term in England - it is pursuer here in Scotland) that as they have a .co.uk site and substantial operations here in the UK they should be directly subject to litigation in the UK. If they were a US only operation then fair enough - it would seem silly to sue them here in the UK, but they have long outgrown that status.