Google Seeks To Throw Out UK Safari Tracking Suit 70
judgecorp writes "In the latest twist to the saga of Google's tracking of Safari users, the tech giant has asked to have a U.K. lawsuit dismissed. Google says it is bound by California laws, so plaintiffs will have to come to the U.S. and sue there. Law firm Olswang is bringing the suit on behalf of British users whose Safari browser settings were overridden to help Google target ads; it argues that international organizations should respect the laws that apply where their customers live."
Google Bows to No Queen (Score:4, Interesting)
Consistent with their tax stance, at least. :-)
Re:Google Bows to No Queen (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't matter - like most jurisdictions, if a business has a physical presence in a given area, they can be sued and are subject to the laws in that area. Odds are pretty good that Google has a physical presence at least somewhere in the UK, so...
Gotta give 'em credit for Chutzpah, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that in order for that to hold, it would have to be a valid contract. And given that UK law involves not being able to give up certain rights (like the right to sue), even through a contract, that contract isn't going to hold up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can not make a contract with someone in any country that has clauses that violate that country's law. That leads to either just the clauses themselves or the entire contract to be nullified.
Re: (Score:2)
Stipulations are not illegal though. You can loan me money and i can agree that all disputes to the contract or repayment be settled in your home town. Likewise, you can agree to not take legal actions if repayment isn't made according to the contract. We both can be held to those terms if we violate them. That in and of itself is not illegal even if local laws provide the means to act contrary to the agreed contract.
The issue here may be that by agreeing to terms that specify jurisdiction, they may have wa
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't think that Google, even if it is a US/California based company, can make contracts with people in the UK which stipulate that Google opts out of UK law. Americans seem to have a rather inflated idea of what the validity of US law is beyond the borders of the US. I have seen interviews with US citizens in foreign jails who genuinely thought they'd be tried according to US laws... in places like Brazil ... or Thailand....
What's more, a jurisdiction may well give additional protections to private individuals that businesses don't receive when it comes to contracts. I've no idea how it works in the US (or Brazil or Thailand) but in the UK, consumer protection law is quite strong and can only be opted out of by not providing products or services to consumers in the first place.
Given that Google has a corporate presence, and is actively marketing their products and services to UK consumers, it's quite likely that a UK court wil
Re: (Score:2)
What? No. You've just invented the idea that the UK only recognises copyrights for works produced within the UK.
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine the UK court would recognise a copyright infringement regardless of that the author was in California. Surely, if you infringe the Californian's copyright whilst in the UK, you've broken UK copyright law and can be tried in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
By law, that's correct - each country only recognizes their copyright and do not generally respect those of other countries. In fact, dur
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's only the copyright holder that can complain
I don't follow - is this not as it should be?
Or are you saying it's a limitation that there are no 'copyright police' to discover copyright infringements on behalf of copyright holders (contrasting with the way police do look out for burglars on behalf of the people)?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm amazed that you pretend to have any clue what you're talking about.
Everything this AC has posted is completely and utterly wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if I have a presence in the UK, if a block there agreed to be bound by CA law, we have to go there to settle this contract.
No, that would simply make it an illegal contract and it would be nullified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though, no money was exchanged between the parties, so... no contract.
Wrong. The characteristic feature of a contract is agreement; money is commonly involved, but is definitely not required. What's more, the service terms of Google would constitute part of a contract of adhesion, and UK courts are very wary of those when they relate to consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting non sequitur. What crackerjack box did you get your legal degree from?
screw the EULA (Score:3)
We see what happens when patent trolls are permitted to establish the venue for trial. East Texas, baby! The judges are in our pocketses, Precious!
As has already been pointed out, no contract trumps the law. No law permits you to effectively strip me of my rights by making it difficult (or possibly even impossible) to get to the court of your choosing. No law allows one court jurisdiction to rule the world. Google cannot write any contract or EULA that trumps British law.
They MIGHT be able to introduce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
which is exactly why East Texas has such a good business deciding patent cases. If its good enough for intra-US lawsuits, its good enough for cross-border ones too.
And besides, it never stopped the US from prosecuting people it considers might have violated american laws, like online gambling, no matter where in the world they live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Bows to No Queen (Score:4, Funny)
-I'm just sayin'
whatever Google wants, Google gets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Upper Camel Case Confuses Parts Of Speech (Score:1)
I read this headline as 'Google seeks to dispose of a suit (wearable) invented in the UK and intended to be used for tracking [animals] by people on safari' which made me wonder why Google would toss a (potentially) perfectly good stealth tracking suit. I wish I had a safari tracking suit...
What does it take to form a country? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it's called the "US", and Google already owns it and abides by its own rules.
It's not floating, however - but stuck to the bedrock from the weight. That last joke was brought to you by Europeans, who notice correctly that Americans are fat.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They could but only to the extent other countries recognized them as a country and even then, only to the extent their transactions are viewed to be within that country.
The problem is if you buy something online, did you buy it in your country or the sellers. That even gets muddled when you send it to my country and i use it. Am i using it in my country or yours. This is where a strong military and economic advantage comes into play. If you have the military might, you can enforce it being in yo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ironically Google stood alone in fighting China and refused to censor...
That is quite an interesting rewriting of history. Google was censoring the results on the mainland China page starting in 2006 [bbc.co.uk] up until to 2010. They only stopped censoring in Jan 2010 in response to the Chinese hack attack against them
Re: (Score:1)
And to add, as the story notes they were self censoring the results.
Re: Do No Evil (Score:1)
What a prime example of a gSheep. Apologizing Google with inappropriate arguments.
A burglar will defend itself with "hey it's not my fault the owners are not living in Fort Knox.
A carjacker will say "hey it's not my fault the door was not locked".
A theft will say "hey it's not my fault the goods were not bolted to the ground. "
Using your special kind of stupidness all three would be totally innocent.
What's wrong with you guys?
Stop pretending Google is above law. Stop pretending they are innocent and can do
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. You're still a thief even if my house happened to be unlocked at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm generally a fan of Google, but in this case they're way off base and should just admit they're wrong and pay the fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite get why they are getting fined for something that was allowed by nearly every other browser.
Do the police like using Safari or something?
Its not like the Safari cookie policies are law.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, just wait till there is a trial in one of those countries that cut off your hand for stealing...
Postpone the pitchforks and torches for a moment.. (Score:2)
Safari Suit with GPS tracking? (Score:1)
How's that again? (Score:4, Funny)
UK safari tracking suit? [cnbeyer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I have to admit the only reason I opened this thread was because I was hoping someone would do something like that.
Typical American attitude (Score:1)
Typical American attitude. Our laws and ideals apply everywhere. We are the world.
Every company that sells products in a region has to meet the standards of the region to sell their products. Why should software services be treated any differently?
You want to do business in China, you follow Chinese law. You want to do business in the UK, you follow UK law.
You don't want to follow the local laws, you don't get to do business.
Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software. I don't see google winning but i find the outrage being shown to be very uninteligent and lacking.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software.
What license agreement? The only installed software in this discussion in Safari.
uninteligent
Speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, with every product in the world, you are subject to the terms, conditions, and legal system in place where the product is used/sold.
Software services should be no different. If you don't like the terms of a particular nation, block their users from using your service.
If a Japanese car's brake system fails in the US (like Toyota), they get sued where the cars were sold, not where the cars were manufactured.
Re: (Score:2)
The same approach applies to patent, trademark, and copyright laws.
Why in the world should software services be treated as the only exception in the world except to satisfy American megacorps?
Fuck Google.
Let them fight where their customers are.
Is that valid? There's a good chance it isn't (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?
I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.
In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.
But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".
Profit!!! (Score:2)
1. Have international web based platform that makes money by breaking laws in other countries.
2. Use your home jurisdiction and lobbying to make you immune from lawsuits.
3. Profit!!!
uhh... (Score:2)
Why is it a different set of rules for big corporations? If this were a case of, person A suing person B, and person B didn't show up to court, and lost, then didn't pay up,
Re: (Score:2)
This is a civil case over supposed criminal activities that google has not been charged on in Europe (yet). There will not be any arrests or extradiction because of the lawsuit. But any assests including bank accounts within control/reach of the legal system could be confiscated and converted into payments if Brittish law allows it to happen. If the trial was properly defended, other countries could honor yhe judgement but not likely if it was held in absentia (google doesn't show).
Re: (Score:2)