The EU's ruling against Google, often referred to as the “right to be forgotten”, has been criticized by many. But this only concerns European countries. If you search for the same people's names in a country outside the EEA, the censored search results will be fully accessible.

It's even worse a temporary injunction which was decided by a Canadian court last week. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Google to remove links to more than 300 websites owned by Datalink Technologies Gateways within 14 days.

Behind the lawsuit, in which Google is not actually a party, is Equustek Solutions, which claims that Datalink uses stolen trade secrets to offer products – mainly networking equipment – that compete with those of Equustek. In practice, the products are considered pirated copies.

There are several aspects of the case that are peculiar, but the most important is that the Canadian court demands that Google stop indexing or referencing Datalink web pages in search results for all editions of the data service. company search. In other words, the Canadian court believes that it can decide how Google, a non-Canadian company, should also act in all countries other than Canada.

Gigaom, who mentions the caselinks to law professor Michael Geist.

Geist writes that Google voluntarily removed relevant search results from Google.ca, but was unwilling to remove them from search results globally.

– The implications are enormous, because since one Canadian court has the power to limit the world's access to information, other courts probably do too. Even if the court does not take up this possibility, what will happen if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay or lesbian websites from the company's database? Or what if Iran ordered the company to remove Israeli websites from its database? The possibilities are endless since local rules regarding freedom of expression often vary from country to country. Nonetheless, the British Columbia court believes it can issue an order with global effect, Geist writes.

The injunction states that the injunction will force Google to act in California or the state from which the search engine is controlled, and therefore not worldwide.

Google was likely chosen because the company's search service is also the most used in Canada. But if the decision is upheld, it is difficult to understand why providers of other search services would not be required to do the same. At the same time, the last word has probably not been said in this matter.

Read also :