

Google argues lawsuit concerning UK privacy should be brought in California - k-mcgrady
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/google-privacy-claim-uk-british-court-california

======
arethuza
I think that headline is _slightly_ misleading - Google is running an argument
in court that as their service is supplied from the US then they can't be sued
here in the UK.

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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
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/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/)

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
[1] [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/googles-
forum-s...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/11/googles-forum-
selection-clause-upheld-again-rudgayzer-v-google.htm)

------
moomin
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.

------
buro9
> 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.

~~~
gaius
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/01/google-
new...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/01/google-new-london-
headquarters)

A billion quid and 4500 employees. Seems a bit much for a country in which you
don't make any profit, no?

------
fear91
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.

------
lettergram
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?

~~~
gress
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.

------
qwerta
I think users outside US are under Privacy Disclaimer with Irish Google. So
English users should sue in Ireland.

------
grecy
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?

~~~
yid
> 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... :)

~~~
grecy
> _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.

------
brainsic
_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?

~~~
mf3i21
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.

~~~
1010011010
"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.

~~~
adrianlmm
Not really, Google has been cooperating with the NSA.

~~~
1010011010
[citation needed]

