Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books, YouTube, and Google Images. Google was found to have violated anti-trust law with its monopolization of the internet search and advertising market.

The FTC's largest civil penalty was for a case in which the United States showed that Google violated its own privacy policy and previous FTC orders by putting HTTP cookies in the Safari web browser despite privacy assurances. In other cases Google Ads had allowed any advertiser to bind their ads to competitor's trademarks. This practice may have violated trademark law, but was settled without a clear judgement. Google also had to defend its trademark over Google following the adoption of google as a verb. The company has defended itself in law suits alleging it discriminates against white and Asian men during hiring and against women at work.

Google's development of Android was challenged by Oracle's intellectual property claims but was found to be fair use. The Google Play store has been challenged by parents and app makers for fees it charges on in-app purchases.

Privacy

United States v. Google Inc.

United States vs. Google Inc. is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had ever won. The FTC and Google consented to the entry of the stipulated order to resolve the dispute which arose from Google's violation of its privacy policy. In this case, the FTC found Google liable for misrepresenting "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser". It was reached after the FTC considered that through the placement of advertising tracking cookies in the Safari web browser, and while serving targeted advertisements, Google violated the 2011 FTC's administrative order issued in FTC v. Google Inc.

Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González

Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González was a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union holding that an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal information which appears on web pages published by third parties.

Hibnick v. Google, Inc.

Hibnick v Google was a class action suit against Google in 2010. The suit accused Google of breaching several electronic communications laws with the launch of their new product Google Buzz.Streib, Lauren. "Harvard Law Student Files Class Action Suit Against Google Over Buzz" , Business Insider, 18 February 2010. Retrieved on 08 October 2014."Local class action complaint filed over Google Buzz" , "SF Gate", 17 February 2010.Heussner, Ki Mae. "Google Buzz Draws Class-Action Suit From Harvard Student"], "ABC News", 18 February 2010. Google Buzz was a social media network that automatically plugged into Gmail.

Joffe v. Google, Inc.

Joffe v. Google, Inc. was a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. that entered official Supreme Court jurisdiction in November 2010. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Legislation segments when they intruded on the seemingly “public” wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google appealed multiple times, the courts ruled in favor of Joffe.

Mosley v SARL Google

Mosley v SARL Google was a 2013 French court case in which former President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile Max Mosley attempted to make the internet search engine Google remove images of him engaging in a sado-masochistic sex act with several prostitutes. The publication of the images in the (now defunct) British newspaper The News of the World was litigated in Mosley v News Group Newspapers and resulted in Mr Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.

Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google, Inc.

Rocky Mountain Bank v. Google Inc. was a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holding that Google had to reveal the account information of a Gmail user who had been mistakenly sent sensitive information from Rocky Mountain Bank.

Patacsil v. Google,. Inc. Patacsil v. Google,. Inc. In re Google Location History Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-05062, U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The law firm Franklin D. Azar and Associates, P.C. was appointed interim class counsel in this privacy case by users of Google Maps or other Google applications, alleging that Google deliberately collected personal information from individuals in order to generate millions of dollars in revenue by covertly recording contemporaneous location data about users on their mobile devices who had specifically opted out of such tracking.

Advertising

Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc. was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case in which the court held that recommending a trademark for keyword advertising was a commercial use of the trademark, and could constitute trademark infringement. The case involved Rescuecom. Prior to the case's resolution, Google recommended the 'Rescuecom' trademark to businesses (including Rescuecom's competitors), that were buying keywords through Google's AdWords product.

Rosetta Stone v. Google Inc.

Goddard v. Google, Inc.

Goddard v. Google, Inc. is a case in which Jenna Goddard alleged that she was harmed by Google as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint.

Censorship

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Garcia v. Google, Inc. is a case where Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website, YouTube, to have the controversial film, Innocence of Muslims, taken down from the site. A California district court denied Garcia's motion for preliminary injunction, but, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, ordered YouTube to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration.Garcia v. Google , no. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014). Accessed November 3, 2014. In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction.

Russia v. Google, Inc. On October 31, 2024, Google was ordered to pay $20 decillion by the Russian government following the removal of 17 pro-Kremlin YouTube channels, several of which have been blocked since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov defended the large sum of money, as "it is rather filled with symbolism," and stated that "[Google] should not restrict our broadcasters on their platform. This should be a reason for the Google leadership to pay attention to this and improve the situation."

Defamation Bleyer v. Google Inc On August 12, 2014, the Supreme Court of New South Wales found in the case of Bleyer v Google Inc NSWSC 897 that Google was not a publisher of automated search results before receiving complaints, and permanently stayed defamation proceedings on proportionality grounds. Roland Bleyer sued Google over search results that had been viewed by only three people, but Justice McCallum ruled that with estimated legal costs of against minimal publication and likely unenforceable judgment, the proceedings were "vastly disproportionate" and constituted an abuse of process.

The decision established Australia's first application of the proportionality principle in defamation law, allowing courts to dismiss cases where litigation costs far exceed the interests at stake, and became a landmark precedent for when internet companies can be held legally responsible for content created by others. The case influenced subsequent defamation law reforms including specific search engine exemptions in Australia's 2024 Model Defamation Provisions.

Duffy v. Google Inc On October 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of South Australia found in the case of Duffy v Google Inc SASC 170 that Google Autocomplete perpetuated a defamation of the plaintiff for which Google was liable.

Defteros v. Google LLC

On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria found in the case of Defteros v Google LLC VSC 219 that Google could be held liable for defamation in Australia. "The Court held that Google does publish webpages reached by clicking on hyperlinks within Google search results. The resolution of the publication issue was a necessary step to Google’s liability; Google succeeded on some defences and failed on others. Defteros was awarded $40,000."

On August 17, 2022, Australia's highest court ruled that Google was not liable. A joint statement by Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justice Jacqueline Gleeson said, “In reality, a hyperlink is merely a tool which enables a person to navigate to another webpage."

Intellectual property

Agence France Presse In March 2005, Agence France Presse (AFP) sued Google for copyright infringement in federal court in the District of Columbia, a case which Google settled for an undisclosed amount in a pact that included a license of the full text of AFP articles for use on Google News.

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Authors Guild v. Google was a copyright case litigated in the United States centering on the allegations by the Authors Guild that Google infringed their copyrights in developing its Google Book Search database. The Google Book Search Settlement Agreement was a proposed settlement agreement between the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and Google in settlement of Authors Guild et al. v. Google, a class action lawsuit alleging copyright infringement. The settlement was initially proposed in 2008, and ultimately rejected by the court in 2011. In late 2013, the presiding U.S. Circuit Judge dismissed Authors Guild et al. v. Google.Google Wins: Court Issues a Ringing Endorsement of Google Books , Publishers weekly, Nov 14, 2013

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. is a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case in which Viacom sued alleging that YouTube had engaged in "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission. A motion for summary judgement seeking dismissal was filed by Google and was granted in 2010 on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions shielded Google from Viacom's copyright infringement claims. In 2012, on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, it was overturned in part. On April 18, 2013, District Judge Stanton again granted summary judgment in favor of defendant YouTube. An appeal was begun, but the parties settled in March 2014.

Field v. Google, Inc.

Field v. Google, Inc. is a case where Google successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it cached his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

Mian Mian lawsuit