Google Incorporation’s Indian Strategy To Counter Legal Disputes

Google is increasingly finding itself involved in various regulatory issues around the globe. Even the Indian shares of legal disputes with Google have increased a lot. Presently, Google is facing a criminal trial in New Delhi and representatives of Google would appear before a Court in New Delhi on 13th March 2012.

In the meantime, a new privacy policy and terms of service (ToS) by Google have also been suggested that would become applicable from 01-03-2012. However, European Union officials have asked Google to put on hold this policy implementation. Only time would tell whether this policy would be implemented or not.

Google has also started redirecting Indian bloggers to ***.blogspot.in domain from the original ***.blogspot.com domain. This way Google can “selectively remove” offending contents in a particular jurisdiction like India and leave the same contents available in other jurisdictions.

Whether it is copyright violation, trademark violation, cyber law infringements or any similar legal issue, Google has been facing many regulatory and legal hurdles. Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) believe that Google has been doing its level best to resolve disputes of various parties though many times disputes are not resolved as per desired expectations. However, Google needs to do something more to avoid future cyber litigations and disputes that are going to increase in India

In order to avoid unnecessary troubles, Google must appoint a nodal officer in India. Further, Google must also keep in mind the privacy rights and laws in India, data protection laws of India, Internet intermediary liability in India and many more such issues.

Perry4Law and PTLB believe that the most important aspect of Google Incorporation’s policy to counter Indian legal disputes is to segregate Indian and non Indian based legal disputes. While dealing with Indian disputes, the Indian team and nodal officer must be pro active. While dealing with disputes involving foreign jurisdictions, Google’s core team may be involved.

Perry4Law and PTLB further believe that legal arguments based upon “subsidiary status” are not good in the long term. Rather, these arguments reflect the “evasive approach” and should be abdicated as soon as possible. Instead a pro active approach must be adopted by Google where legally tenable requests must be entertained immediately and pressure tactics and arm twisting methods should be fought to the maximum possible extent.

Perry4Law and PTLB hope that Google would find these suggestions worth consideration.