An appeals court has ruled that the Mississippi attorney general can continue with his investigation of Google’s policies to police elicit or infringing content.
A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overruled a lower court judge who had blocked the state from requiring Google to turn over documents or from bringing charges against the tech giant on the issue.
{mosads}The decision is an initial win for Mississippi Attorney General James Hood (R). But the court noted the decision is based on timing and not the merits of the case. If Hood ever follows through by bringing charges against Google or enforcing a subpoena for documents, both sides could find themselves back in the same place.
“This injunction covers a fuzzily defined range of enforcement actions that do not appear imminent,” the court wrote in its 23-page opinion. “We cannot on the present record predict what conduct Hood might one day try to prosecute under Mississippi law.”
The decision stems from a long-running dispute between the Mississippi attorney general and Google. For years, Hood has been pressing Google to bolster its policies on how it removes illegal content — including copyright-protected works, cyber leaks and prescription drug sales. In 2014, he issued a subpoena requesting mountains of Google documents related to the company’s policies to police that content.
Google says federal law grants it immunity from third-party content on its site as long as it removes illegal content when asked. It claims that Hood’s inquiry is a fishing expedition that is being pushed by the movie industry to try and establish online piracy policies that Congress previously rejected after a massive backlash from the public.
In late 2014, Google sued to block the subpoena and any further investigation. The company cited immunity under the Communications Decency Act, the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment rights of its users.
A federal judge agreed and granted an injunction to block Hood’s investigation.
The court on Friday said Google’s call to block Hood’s investigation was premature. The court said injury to Google could not be proved, since Hood’s subpoena is currently unenforceable and his threats of charges do not seem imminent.
“Google does not contest Hood’s assertions that it could raise its objections to the administrative subpoena if Hood ever brings an enforcement proceeding,” the court wrote.
The court did not rule on the merits of the Hood’s initial subpoena, but it noted that the 79-page document is “written expansively” and would “require massive document production.”