Tech giant has for some reason decided that it’s immune to British justice and claimed that it is instead under the protection of a French-backed terrorist junta that abolished British laws back two centuries ago. Google has claimed that it’s American and therefore can do what it likes in other countries. Even if the company does evil to British people, it insists that they go over to one of those American courts where you win by paying the most money.

This was the main argument used by Google’s lawyers in a British court. They showed up in court accused by claimants of secretly monitoring their behavior by circumventing security settings on Safari browser. The company claimed it has no need to recognize a UK court because it was American. Google told the High Court that it should throw out claims that it secretly tracked the browsing habits of millions of Safari users – not because it didn’t do it, but because it was American and could do what it liked in the United Kingdom.

Initially, Google has insisted that the lawsuit must be brought in California, where its headquarters is based. However, a similar privacy claim was struck out in the United States. Perhaps, the British judges will decide that they should be outsourcing their work to the US.

The tech giant has been called “arrogant and immoral” for its tactics in the case – actually, the company was very much in the UK, with its UK specific site and staff in Britain, selling adverts in Britain and making a lot of money there. However, Google does its best not to pay British tax.

The plaintiffs claim that if consumers are based in the United Kingdom and British laws are abused, the perpetrator must be held to account in the UK, not in a jurisdiction that might suit Google better. This is why Google’s suggestion that UK consumers should travel all the way to California was considered “arrogant, immoral and a disgrace”.

The industry experts admit that a case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety a couple months ago in the United States. So it might make sense to just ask the court to re-examine whether this case meets the standards required in the United Kingdom for a case like this to go to trial.