EU's Top Court Sides With Google in Rebuffing Germany's Bid to Regulate Gmail
The ruling means that Google and similar service providers will be able to avoid the vast range of data protection and security obligations that apply to telecommunications companies in Germany.
June 13, 2019 at 04:45 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Google won an important and rare victory Thursday when the European Court of Justice ruled that its Gmail service should not be treated as a telecommunications service, dismissing arguments made by Germany's telecoms regulator.
The ruling means that Google will not be required to register Gmail as a telecoms service and will escape the vast range of data protection and security obligations that apply to telecommunications companies in Germany.
The decision is a victory for Google and other so-called over-the-top (OTT) service providers that feared the burden of being treated the same way as telecommunications companies.
In 2015, Google challenged a decision by Germany's telecoms regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur, to classify its Gmail services as a telecommunications service. The Higher Administrative Court in Cologne, Germany, asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide whether Gmail met the requirements to qualify as a telecoms service. These are defined in EU and German law as transmitting electronic signals.
The ECJ found that Gmail's service did not “wholly or partially consist” of the transmission of signals. Although the sending of emails via Gmail involved the transmission of signals, the signals were transmitted by internet service providers, not Google itself, the court found.
“The ECJ rightly points out that not every service which includes the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks automatically falls under the stringent EU telecoms regulatory framework,” said Christoph Werkmeister, a lawyer with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Düsseldorf.
If the ECJ had ruled in favour of the German regulator, Google and other providers of web-based email services could have faced a range of regulatory requirements that apply to telecommunications service companies.
These include obligations to share information about data transfers with law enforcement authorities as well as the possibility of being forced to make their services interoperable with other web-based services.
New EU legislation due to come into effect at the end of 2020, known as the European electronic communications code, is expected to apply to OTT services and impose stricter regulatory requirements on them.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Beyond Borders: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Stress the Need for a Global Outlook Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Matters
Cybersecurity Is Top-of-Mind for In-House Disputes Lawyers in 2024
Litigators of the Week: King & Spalding Wins a Botnet Case for Google, Sticks Defendants with Attorney Fees
Trending Stories
- 1Perkins Coie Lures Former Longtime Wilson Sonsini Tech Transactions Partner
- 2‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
- 3MoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
- 4Antitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
- 5People in the News—Jan. 22, 2025—Knox McLaughlin, Saxton & Stump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250