The US Appeals Court Rules for Mississippi Attorney General Over Subpoena of Google’s Search Practices

On April 8, 2016, in Google Inc v James M Hood, III, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, No 15-60205, the United States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s preliminary injunction which was granted in favour of Google.  The injunction had prevented the Mississippi Attorney General (AG) from enforcing a subpoena over Google’s search practices.

The AG had sought extensive information from Google regarding its search practices, particularly in relation to copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods.  In response, Google filed a lawsuit and successfully sought an injunction preventing enforcement of the administrative subpoena issued by the AG.

The present appeal follows from the injunction granted by the District Court. The Court of Appeals stated that the preliminary injunction was an “extraordinary remedy” which could only be granted if the proponent clearly met the following tests:

(1)  a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits;

(2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;

(3) his threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin;  and

(4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court erred in granting injunctive relief because neither the issuance of the non-self-executing administrative subpoena nor the possibility of some future enforcement action “created an imminent threat of irreparable injury ripe for adjudication.”