This article is more than 1 year old

Google ads probe blow

Google's attempt to shut down a probe by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has been blocked by a US appeals court.

Hood, along with other state prosecutors, wanted to investigate whether or not Google was complying with a $500m settlement with the US government. As well as coughing up the chunk of change, the web giant agreed to tackle online ads for fake or illegally imported prescription drugs. Hood felt not enough was being done, so fired off a subpoena, which upset Google.

In March last year, Google convinced a Mississippi federal court to slap an injunction on the state prosecutor's probe. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit has ruled [PDF] the lower court was wrong to halt the investigation:

In late 2012 and early 2013, Hood and other state attorneys general began expressing concern that search engines were not doing enough to combat copyright infringement, the sale of prescription drugs and counterfeit products, and other “illegal and harmful” activity on the internet.

In April 2013, Hood’s office wrote to Google about these topics, alleging that the company had inadequately responded to previous requests for information, showing an “unwillingness to make meaningful reforms” and “a lack of commitment to making the Internet a safe place for families and commerce.” Hood complained that, among other things, children were “able to purchase drugs without a prescription through Google,” and that “sites peddling counterfeit and pirated goods are still appearing at the top of” search results.

Friction between the parties escalated. In May 2013, Hood threatened that if the company did not “provide adequate answers,” he would urge his fellow attorneys general to issue civil investigative demands (subpoenas) to the company ... In October 2014, Hood made good on his threats to issue an administrative subpoena.

On December 19, 2014—without further responding to the administrative subpoena or seeking relief in state court—Google filed this lawsuit. Google alleges that Hood’s investigation violates Google’s immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), its Fourth Amendment rights, and the First Amendment rights of Google and its users.

In sum, as underscored by Hood’s apparent need to gather considerable information before he can determine whether an enforcement action is warranted, the prospect of one is not sufficiently imminent or defined to justify equitable relief ... We conclude that the district court erred in granting injunctive relief.

Google can continue to resist efforts by prosecutors to probe its online ads and handling of copyrighted material; it just can't rely on this injunction for now. Hood's motives came under the spotlight when it looked as though he was a little too close to Hollywood's lawyers and other anti-Google parties, although the attorney general maintains he is simply trying to get Google to follow the law. ®

More about

TIP US OFF

Send us news