- Network Neutrality
- COPPA Subpoena
- FCC Google Voice inquiry
- Google Book Settlement
Google Street View WiFi
In 2010, Google alegedly captured a fair amount of data being transmitted over open WiFi access points while the Google Street View car was going about capturing pictures of streets.
Google is being investigated by several governments and has testified before the US Congress concerning the matter. Several class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States.
Berlage v. Google (NDCal filed May 20) Carter v. Google (EDPa filed June 2) Colman v. Google (DCDC filed May 26) Galaxy Internet v. Google (DMass filed May 25) Keyes v. Google (DCDC filed May 28) Redstone v. Google (SDIll filed May 28, 2010) Van Valin v. Google (DOre filed May 17).
(Copies of complaints uploaded by Eric Goldman)
Joel Gurin, Chief of the FCC's Consumer Bureau, stated "Google's behavior also raises important concerns. Whether intentional or not, collecting information sent over WiFi networks clearly infringes on consumer privacy. "
Alan Eustace, WiFi data collection: An update, THE OFFICIAL GOOGLE BLOG (June 9, 2010) ("When we announced three weeks ago that we had mistakenly included code in our software that collected samples of payload data from WiFi networks, we said we would ask a third party to review the software at issue, how it worked, and what data it gathered. That report, by the security consulting firm Stroz Friedberg, is now complete and was sent to the interested data protection authorities today. In short, it confirms that Google did indeed collect and store payload data from unencrypted WiFi networks, but not from networks that were encrypted.")
Letter from Pablo Chavez, Director of Public Policy, Google Inc., to Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives (June 9, 2010)
Northern District of California
- In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, 2011 WL 2571632 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2011) (Order granting Google's request to certify and staying case)
- In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Communs. Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71572 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (denying Google’s motion to dismiss)
- "The court ruled that the statutory definition specifically applies to “radio communication” and construed the term “radio communication” narrowly to include only “traditional radio services,” such as “public-directed radio broadcast communication.”52 Since the term “radio communication” was not defined in the Act (as compared to “electronic communication,” which is defined), the court relied on legislative history, indicating that the Congress added the definition in subsection 2510(16) to alleviate radio hobbyists’ concerns and thus only to clarify that “intercepting traditional radio services is not unlawful.”53 The court also reasoned that the five exceptions within section 2510(16) “are drafted for the particular technology of radio broadcast medium and do not address any broader radio-based communications technology."
- Potnuru, Mani, Limits of Federal Wiretap Act's Ability to Protect Against Wi-Fi Sniffing and the Need for Amendment, p. 12 (December 12, 2011
- Shaina Hyder, The Fourth Amendment and Government Interception of Unsecured Wireless Communications, Vol. 28:937, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2013
- Potnuru, Mani, Limits of Federal Wiretap Act's Ability to Protect Against Wi-Fi Sniffing and the Need for Amendment 111 MICH. L. REV. 89 (2012)
- Google Fiber’s customer numbers remain small, analyst says, The Kansas City Star, Mar. 12, 2015, at (reporting that despite being in the Kansas City MO and KS market since 2012, Google has only 27,000 video subscribers versus TWC’s 193,208 video subscribers in the Kansas City market)
- Craig Moffett, Moffett/Nathanson Note, March 12, 2015 (““Google Fiber is a bit like Ebola: very scary and something to be taken seriously … but the numbers are very small, it gets more press attention than it deserves and it ultimately doesn’t pose much of a risk (here in the U.S. at least)”).
- Nov. 2012 - Kansas City - Google Fiber
- 4Q2014 - Austin Tx - Google Fiber
- 2015 - San Antonio Tx - Google Fiber
- ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC., Dist. Court, WD Washington 2013 (Motion TRO denied; "Google recently took adverse action against these websites. (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) Google notified ICF and its clients that the websites in question violate Google's "Webmaster or Quality Guidelines." (Id.) Specifically, Google warned the sites not to engage in "thin content," i.e., providing internet content that has little or no value to endusers.")
- THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED v. YOUTUBE, INC., Dist. Court, SD NY 2009 "Plaintiffs' Copyright Act claims for statutory damages are dismissed with respect to all foreign works which were not registered in the United States ("unregistered foreign works"), except those in suit under the "live broadcast exemption" in Section 411(c) of the Act."
- Communications Decency Act
- FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED v. YouTUBE, INC., Dist. Court, SD NewYork 2013 (denying Class Action status)
- Stayart v. Google Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1056-57 (E.D. Wis. 2011) aff'd, 710 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding that plaintiff's allegation that Google suggested the phrase "bev stayart levitra"— the plaintiff's name and the name of a sexual dysfunction drug—when plaintiff Googled her name did not allow plaintiff to "get around [the CDA] obstacle")
- Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500-01 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (explaining Google is immune under the CDA for tort claims premised on allowing access to allegedly defamatory messages posted by third-party users on Usenet's message boards)
- Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., 330 F. Supp. 2d 700, 701-02 (E.D. Va. 2004) (explaining how search engines work)
- Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 630-31 (D. Del. 2007);
- Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 501 (E.D. Pa. 2006);
- Jurin v. Google, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1123 (E. D. Cal. 2010)
- Gavra v. Google Inc., 5:12-CV-06547-PSG, 2013 WL 3788241, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013) (explaining that liability is not created under § 230 by "refraining from removing objectionable content, despite receiving notice")
- Mmubango v. Google, Inc., CIV. A. 12-1300, 2013 WL 664231, at *1, 3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2013) (rejecting claim that Google was required to remove links to third-party derogatory statements about the plaintiff after receiving notice)
- Youtube acquired by Google.
- Benjamin Edelman, Empirical Analysis of Google SafeSearch, CYBER.LAW.HARVARD.EDU, Apr. 14, 2003
- Sartor, Giovanni and Viola de Azevedo Cunha, Mario, The Italian Google-Case: Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Responsibility of Providers for User-Generated Contents (May 11, 2010).
- Ling, Yutian, Note: Google Street View - Privacy Issues Down the Street, Across the Border, and Over the Seas (April 11, 2008). Boston University journal of Science and Technology Law, 2008.