Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Gonzales v. Google, Inc.

234 F.R.D. 674 (2006)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Gonzales v. Google, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

234 F.R.D. 674 (2006)

Play video

Facts

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, forbids knowingly using the internet to communicate material that is harmful to minors for commercial purposes. The American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs challenged COPA's constitutionality and were granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the statute. That matter ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, which affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction. However, the Court raised questions about whether there was filtering software available that could prevent minors from viewing harmful content, as that would be a less restrictive way of achieving COPA's goals. The Court remanded the matter for trial so the parties could update the record to explain the available technologies. In preparing its trial defense, the government hoped to test filtering software and subpoenaed Google, Inc. (Google) (defendant), America Online, Inc. (AOL), Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo), and Microsoft, Inc. (Microsoft). The subpoena required production of URLs available to users and text of search queries entered by users. AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft produced the data requested by the government. Google, the market-leading search engine, objected to the production. The government reduced its initial demand for data and sought a sample of 50,000 URLs and 5,000 user queries. Google still objected to the government's request. United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (plaintiff) filed an action against Google in federal district court to enforce compliance with the subpoena.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ware, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership