Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
1–10 of 249 posts
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#2I'm much more worried about these governments and their censorship than I am Google's near monopoly on search.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#3If you kill freedom, freedom wins.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#4Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you support.
Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship:
"Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible."
In other words, if an interlocutory order with international scope would violate foreign freedom of expression legislation (or other legislation in general), it would be possible to seek to vary the interlocutory order by raising those issues specifically.
This framework should be familiar to jurists in Canada, as it resembles the Paramountcy doctrine.
Whether or not this case will be widely used is unclear. This case is nearly 100% fact-perfect for the Respondent - it honestly looks like a civil-rights test case. It is very possible that imperfect everyday facts provide sufficient fuel for judges to distinguish this case from the case in front of them.
The dissent is interesting because it lists a number of pieces of evidence the dissenters would have needed to see before moving forward, including the impact of the first order on sales figures. These dissents often provide counsel with information regarding how to structure future cases in order to avoid outstanding concerns.
These are my first pass thoughts. I'll probably read it through another two times before the day is done.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#5Google should have country specific feeds (canada.google.com) instead of domains. Then location based filtering is forced on the browser where it should be.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#6I was expecting the ruling to involve some really bad behavior such as selling misslabeled drugs or invading the privacy of private individuals. Instead it is a benign product relabling suit. IMO, product relabeling doesn't even harm the company who's products are relabeled.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#7A hypothetical: Company A is in country X and company B is in country Y. Country X declares on behalf of company A that company B be blocked from searches worldwide (including country Y). Country Y declares on behalf of company B that company B cannot be blocked from searches (at least in country Y). Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will fine the most? Does this give benefits to the overly-regulating country/region and is that what we want?
Another hypothetical question: Can Canada require some retailer in the US to remove another non-Canadian company's products in the US just because the retailer and a competing company both have presence in Canada?
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#8I was expecting the ruling to involve some really bad behavior such as selling misslabeled drugs or invading the privacy of private individuals. Instead it is a benign product relabling suit. IMO, product relabeling doesn't even harm the company who's products are relabeled.
Could you elaborate? I don't really know much about relabeling. The company seems to be claiming that the infringing company is selling products under company A's name when they have no actual affiliation, which sounds like ordinary fraud to me.
edit: Nevermind, I misread. There is no fraud or impersonation occurring.
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#9Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you support. Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship: "Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would res…
Not a lawyer, so I'm happy to see that the passage that caught my eye also caught yours.
Other bits that I found interesting:
> [107] Google asserts that the Court does not have the authority to make an order of the kind sought. In issue is whether the Court has “subject matter competence”. The plaintiffs and Google agree that the type of order I am asked to make has never before been made by a Canadian court.
> [119] I do not accept Google’s submission that the Court only has authority to make an order against a non-party in relation to contempt or to further fact finding necessary to effect justice. Lack of precedent should not be confused with lack of subject matter competence.
> [133] I conclude that the Court has authority to grant an injunction against a non-party resident in a foreign jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.
=====
Something I have to wonder about: there's nothing here that speaks to the technical difficulties intrinsic to the process of de-listing a website.
Say Google blacklists "www.very-obviously-illegal-under-canadian-law.com". The offending party then registers "www.completely-irrelevant-url-1.com" and "www.irrelevant-url-2.ca" and so on. Is Google expected to permanently block these URLs? What if some of these URLs were obtained illegally (or more generally, what burden of proof must be achieved to demonstrate that a website should be blacklisted)? Is there some way for people - especially prospective buyers for these DNS records - to know that these URLs have been blacklisted?
=====
Ruling link: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...
Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches
#10Tremendously impactful decision, regardless of which side of the case you support. Interestingly, the majority addressed a Google argument centered upon concerns regarding the possibility of international censorship: "Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would res…
Should every court and country have the right to demand that things are de-indexed worldwide, now that Canada has done so? Does China have the right to demand Tiananmen Square be de-indexed? Germany and Nazi symbols? Russia and satire about Putin? North Korea? The United States? If not, how do we decide?
The previous framework was, "you can demand whatever you want within your borders; if it is unacceptable, Google will leave." This decision throws a bit of a wrench into that.