In a long dispute between Google and the State of Mississippi’s Attorney General Jim Hood, Google’s most recent request for a rehearing has been denied. The Times Standard reported back in April that the appeals court had overturned a ruling against the Stage of Mississippi. Google has appealed that ruling, which has now been denied.
The dispute between Google and the Attorney General Jim Hood, the AG of the State of Mississippi involves “his investigation of whether Google bears responsibility for websites featuring illicit drugs, stolen credit cards and fake identification, as well as material on YouTube that infringes copyrights.” according to the Time Standard. Attorney General Jim Hood claims that Google frequently allows websites that sell illicit drugs, stolen credit cards and fake IDs to be indexed in their search engine, and won’t remove those websites from their search results quickly enough.
The complaint says that “Mississippi’s Attorney General, James M. Hood III, believes that internet giant Google may be liable under state law for facilitating dangerous and unlawful activity through its online platforms.” It goes on to say that “This dispute concerns the adequacy of Google’s efforts to police the technology services it provides to tens of millions of people every day.”
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.
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. Hood expressed a desire to meet with Google to develop solutions, but warned that “if voluntary actions will not suffice, we will take legal action.” The AG demanded a “24-hour link” through which requests by attorneys general to remove webpages from Google’s searchable index would be “granted or addressed within hours.”
In this appeal, Google concluded that the district court erred in their previous ruling. But their has appeal has not been denied.
