Google Woes in the EU Include Conviction for Executives Over Video Posting


The recent conviction of 3 Google executives in Italy for a video posted on Google which showed the bullying of a disable teenager captured many headlines. No question that the video was in poor taste and Google took the video down within 24 hours of its posting after Google got 2 complaints. The conviction of the Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer and two other executives raises significant issues. A fourth Google executive was acquitted, and Google plans to appeal these convictions. Does it make sense that Google, or any other ISP (Internet Service Provider), be liable for content posted over which the ISP has no control? The US Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects ISPs from liability since they have no control over content posted. How Google fares with these convictions may have an interesting impact on ISPs around the world.

Google Street View May Breach EU Law

Only to make things more complicated recent reports that the Google’s Street View violates EU Data Protection laws since they retain the images for too long. As well it was reported that “Switzerland’s data-protection agency in November sued Google for allegedly failing to comply with proposals to make it harder to identify people and cars on Street View.” Of course disputes regarding Street View are not new since claims of breach of privacy have been under way since at least 2008 in Japan.

Google has More EU Antitrust Problems

ComScore recently reported that Google has about 79% of the searches in the EU and the EU renewed its investigation about Google anticompetitive behavior. Google claims that Microsoft may be the source of the investigation since Microsoft owns one of the companies that complained. It seems reasonable to assume that the search engine wars will continue, but how the EU ultimately rules may have a far reaching impact.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top