In Google LLC and Others v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights held that the Russian authorities had violated Google’s rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6(1) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case arose from enforcement actions taken against Google and its affiliates following refusals to comply with takedown requests concerning political and critical content hosted on YouTube.
In 2021 and 2022, Russia’s media regulator, Roskomnadzor, issued multiple takedown requests targeting YouTube content critical of the government, including videos supporting opposition figure Alexei Navalnyy and coverage of the invasion of Ukraine. Google declined to comply fully and was fined nearly €87 million in December 2021 and €360 million in May 2022 (calculated based on group revenue, including affiliates not found guilty of any offence).
Separately, Google suspended the accounts of Tsargrad TV in 2020 due to sanctions on its owner. Russian courts asserted jurisdiction despite contractual provisions granting jurisdiction to California or UK courts. Google was ordered to reinstate access and faced escalating penalties of RUB 100,000 per day, doubling weekly without any cap. These enforcement actions led to asset seizures and sparked over 20 similar claims, with liabilities calculated to exceed USD 16 trillion by 2022.
The Court held that Russia’s imposition of large and indiscriminate fines created a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression. The measures targeted political speech, independent journalism, and LGBTQ content without demonstrating any legitimate threat to public interests. Domestic courts failed to evaluate the necessity or veracity of the content or its potential for harm, proceeding on presumptions aligned with state narratives. The Court found no legitimate aim or proportionality, concluding a violation of Article 10.
The Court also found a separate violation of Article 10 in the Tsargrad proceedings. It held that compelling Google to host content against its will interfered with the negative aspect of freedom of expression. The fines imposed were excessive and unreasoned, rendering continued operations in Russia unfeasible and reflecting bad faith in enforcement.
The Court held that Russian courts failed to provide adequate reasoning in administrative and civil proceedings. Fines were calculated based on unrelated affiliates’ revenues without justification. The assertion of jurisdiction over Tsargrad’s contract dispute ignored agreed jurisdiction clauses without sufficient reasoning. These failures breached Article 6(1) across all applicant companies.
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, legal certainty, and freedom of expression protections in platform governance and transnational enforcement.