Google ordered to remove certain search results worldwide by Supreme Court of Canada

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,595   +1,682
Staff member

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a lower court’s ruling that Google must remove search results for websites and domains associated with Datalink Technologies Gateways. The controversial decision comes after Equustek Solutions, a company specializing in network interface devices, sued the company over the theft of “trade secrets” and for selling Equustek’s products branded under Datalink's own name.

Datalink denied any wrongdoing, but when the court date arrived to hear the case, the company left Canada and failed to appear in court. Equustek received a default judgment in the case, but Datalink continues to operate outside of Canada.

Even though Google was not named in the lawsuit, Equustek did request that the search company de-list any search results associated with the fugitive corporation. Google voluntarily removed over 300 Datalink websites, but only from its Canadian search index. This action was not good enough for Equustek.

The company sought an injunction against Google in British Columbia that would require the search engine to completely de-list Datalink on a global scale. Although the search giant defended itself on grounds that the order prevented freedom of expression, the BC court ruled in favor of Equustek.

"Such a broad injunction sets a dangerous precedent, especially given that it is likely to conflict with the laws of other nations."

Google appealed the ruling to the Canadian Supreme Court, but the decision was ultimately upheld. As the highest court in the country, there are no further appeals to be heard in the case, and the ruling is final.

According to CBCNews, Justice Rosalie Abella said in her opinion that by not de-indexing Datalink websites, Google was “allowing harm” to come to Equustek and that it was not a matter of freedom of expression.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.”

Several organizations have spoken out against the ruling. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for one, said that the decision disregards foreign laws and “[intrudes] on internet users’ free speech rights.” The EFF added, “This framing results in Google being ordered to remove speech under Canadian law even if no court in the United States could issue a similar order.”

"They have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the internet from becoming a black market."

Others have supported the decision. Graham Henderson, president of Music Canada, said, "Today's decision confirms that online service providers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal activity that they facilitate; on the contrary, they have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the internet from becoming a black market."

Currently, the search engine is still returning results for Datalink. When or if Google will comply with the court order is unknown. A spokesperson said that the company is still "evaluating [its] next steps.”

In the meantime, Equustek is awaiting further hearings against other defendants from the original trade secrets lawsuit. Those proceedings are scheduled to start early next year.

Permalink to story.

 
Looks like Google is finally getting a dose from people that are tired of their BS. Still a great search engine, but they need a "time out" until they get back to their roots.
 
Why not go after the domain or server host?
Exactly. Google has done nothing wrong in this case. It is simply listing information that exists on the web. Just because they de-list it doesn't make the website go away. They should be talking to the hosting agents.

Google should ignore the order. Canada does not have global jurisdiction last time I checked. So if Google doesn't comply what are they going to do? Fine them? Maybe, but then how about Google just stop indexing Canadian websites? Two can play this game.
 
Exactly. Google has done nothing wrong in this case. It is simply listing information that exists on the web. Just because they de-list it doesn't make the website go away. They should be talking to the hosting agents.

Google should ignore the order. Canada does not have global jurisdiction last time I checked. So if Google doesn't comply what are they going to do? Fine them? Maybe, but then how about Google just stop indexing Canadian websites? Two can play this game.

Even on a legal stand point, you would probably have more success shutting down their site instead. I really do wonder why they aren't doing that or maybe they have already failed at it.
 
Even on a legal stand point, you would probably have more success shutting down their site instead. I really do wonder why they aren't doing that or maybe they have already failed at it.
I think it's because of the amount of work involved. Apparently, the rogue company has over 300 websites associated with it, presumably under different names and probably hosted by different hosting companies. That's a lot more legal work for Equustek's legal team than trying to bully the search engine with 70-75% of the market into not listing the sites. Even if they expanded their effort to include Bing, and Yahoo, that's only three lawsuits as opposed to potentially dozens.

Equustek is not that big. It's a small firm with limited resources. It won in Canada. It would not win in the US. It would probably go bankrupt before the first appeal was heard. But I don't know. I'm just an armchair lawyer. lol That's what I like about the comments sections of articles. You can just spout off your opinion. :)
 
I didn't know Canada had the authority to bully a US based company into complying with their demands. Canada may have been able to ban those listings in CANADA, the company might be able to get them banned in all EU member states if they really tried, but I highly doubt that those orders would've passed anywhere else
 
I didn't know Canada had the authority to bully a US based company into complying with their demands. Canada may have been able to ban those listings in CANADA, the company might be able to get them banned in all EU member states if they really tried, but I highly doubt that those orders would've passed anywhere else
Right. Which is why I say Google should just let them try to enforce the order. Very worse that could happen is they could try to impose fines on Google for not following the court order, but I don't think they would. Google holds a lot of leverage. I don't think Canada would want to start seeing .ca sites disappear from search results.

Don't get me wrong. The folks a Datalink are pulling some really douchebag maneuvers. I mean have you seen a list of its aliases?

  • Datalink Technologies Group Inc
  • Datalink Technologies Inc.
  • Datalink Communication Products and Technology Inc.
  • Datalink Solutions Inc
  • Datalink Technologies Group Canada Inc
  • Datalink Technologies Inc
  • Datalink Systems Inc.
  • Datalink Technologies Gateways Inc
  • Datalink Technologies Gateways, LLC
  • Data Tec Inc.
And apparently, the people running the company go by a boatload of alliases too. Plus skipping the country to avoid standing up in court is one thing, but doing it and continuing to do the things you were served papers for is just clear signs of a company that needs its plug pulled.

However, they're chasing the wrong company. Google has nothing to do with the matter. They do not host Datalink, their bots merely index what they find. The hosting companies are not even technically doing anything wrong, but if you are going to impose injunctions, it should be on the hosting companies, not a search engine.
 
Last edited:
I'm Canadian and I agree with you guys.

Pulling it off the Canadian index sure no problem its within the country.

Trying to demand it worldwide.

I'm sorry supreme court of Canada you don't have that kinda of power!

Flex your muscles within your borders!
 
Rules that can't be enforced are useless. Let's say Google decides to just pack up and divorce all Canadian operations. What's Canada gonna do then? Nothing. There's nothing they can do that will have any real consequence on Google. The world stage does not bend to the whim of any one player. The U.S. M.A.F.I.A.A has tried and failed. Lesser organizations need not apply.
 
Rules that can't be enforced are useless. Let's say Google decides to just pack up and divorce all Canadian operations. What's Canada gonna do then? Nothing. There's nothing they can do that will have any real consequence on Google. The world stage does not bend to the whim of any one player. The U.S. M.A.F.I.A.A has tried and failed. Lesser organizations need not apply.

This would never happen for the same reason google won't pull out of EU Market even when they are trying to fine them 2+ billions dollars.

They make too much money to pull out.
 
I didn't know Canada had the authority to bully a US based company into complying with their demands. Canada may have been able to ban those listings in CANADA, the company might be able to get them banned in all EU member states if they really tried, but I highly doubt that those orders would've passed anywhere else

However, they're chasing the wrong company. Google has nothing to do with the matter. They do not host Datalink, their bots merely index what they find. The hosting companies are not even technically doing anything wrong, but if you are going to impose injunctions, it should be on the hosting companies, not a search engine.
Just like riaa (recording industry) going after individual downloaders instead of going after apple which makes ipod/iphone that plays the stolen songs.
 
If I were Google and was being forced to do something like this, I would just remove "Equustek" from the database while I was at it. Search engines should remain agnostic when it comes to what they index. A court should not be allowed to regulate what they do. If people don't like Google they can use another search engine.
 
Back