Google wins free speech case over massive Russian fines and takedown orders

AMSTERDAM (CN) — Europe’s top human rights court ruled Tuesday that Russia violated Google’s rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial. The judgment centers on a series of heavy fines and coercive court measures imposed after Google refused to remove political YouTube content and suspended the accounts of a Russian TV channel linked to sanctions.

Between 2021 and 2023, Russian authorities issued takedown orders targeting YouTube videos critical of government policy, reporting on the war in Ukraine, and LGBTQ rights advocacy. While Google geo-blocked some content within Russia, it refused to remove other politically sensitive videos. That refusal triggered a wave of administrative fines and lawsuits against four affiliated entities — Google LLC, Google Ireland, Google International, and Google Russia.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the steep financial penalties and threat of further sanctions placed improper pressure on the company. The judges said this tactic “exerted considerable pressure on Google LLC to censor content on YouTube, thereby interfering with its role as a provider of a platform for the free exchange of ideas and information.”

Judges criticized Russian authorities for basing part of the fines on the combined revenue of multiple Google companies, including those not directly involved in the case. They said the sanctions were “liable to have a ‘chilling effect’ on its willingness to host content critical of the authorities.”

In December 2021, Russian courts imposed fines exceeding €87 million ($101.7 million) for failing to remove content deemed illegal under Russian law. A second round of penalties, totaling €360 million ($420.8 million), followed in July 2022 when Google refused to block war-related videos.

The court emphasized that the videos in question addressed “matters of significant public interest, particularly in the context of an armed conflict with profound implications for European and global security.” It rejected Russia’s justification that the content endangered national interests, stating: “None of the content which the authorities sought to suppress contained expressions of hate speech, incitement to violence, or discrimination against any group.”

Judges wrote in their opinion that Russian courts did not assess whether the flagged material was false or harmful. Instead, they “proceeded on the presumption that any divergence from official narratives inherently threatened national interests, without providing any concrete evidence of harm.”

The ruling also addressed a separate civil dispute involving Tsargrad TV, a Russian media outlet owned by a businessman sanctioned by the United States and European Union for backing Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.

After Google suspended the channel’s YouTube and Gmail accounts in response to U.S. sanctions, Tsargrad sued in Russian courts. Although the contracts specified that disputes should be handled in U.S. or U.K. courts, Russian judges assumed jurisdiction and ordered Google to restore access. Google complied by reactivating the accounts but withheld monetization features.

Without informing Google, the court appointed an expert who concluded that “substantial parts” of the account’s functionality had not been restored. Relying on this finding, a court bailiff transferred 1 billion rubles (around $11 million) from Google Russia’s frozen accounts to Tsargrad. The outlet later announced the funds would be used to support Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The Strasbourg court found that these enforcement measures were “grossly disproportionate” and lacked a clear legal basis, noting that similar fines had been imposed in more than 20 comparable cases in violation of basic principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

Google also argued that it had been punished not only for its own actions but also for those of legally separate companies. Russian authorities imposed fines based on group-wide revenue and seized funds from Google’s Russian subsidiary, even though it had not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The court agreed that this approach was flawed, saying Russian judgments failed to explain these decisions or respond to Google’s objections. As a result, the company had been denied a fair and properly reasoned ruling.

Although the Russian government refused to participate in the case or submit any observations, the court proceeded with its judgment.

While Moscow no longer recognizes the authority of the court following its 2022 withdrawal from the convention, the judges emphasized that the withdrawal had no impact on the court’s jurisdiction, as the events took place prior to its departure.

The court also said that a state’s refusal to participate does not relieve it of responsibility under the convention for actions taken while still bound by its obligations.

Russia is unlikely to acknowledge the judgment. The ECHR lacks enforcement mechanisms aside from fines.

While the ruling marked a clear victory for Google, Judge Darian Pavli issued a concurring opinion underscoring the broader implications of the case. He noted that this was the court’s first ruling directly addressing the role of a major online platform under the right to freedom of expression. While supporting the majority’s conclusion that Russia’s actions constituted unlawful censorship, he also expressed concern over the lack of meaningful judicial scrutiny in domestic proceedings.

Pavli warned that “a small-town shopping mall from 1998 is a long way from the YouTube of 2025,” urging courts and lawmakers to revisit outdated legal frameworks and establish stronger safeguards to prevent arbitrary restrictions on digital platforms.

Nadège Broustau, a professor of public communication at Université libre de Bruxelles, welcomed the judgment as “a strong reaffirmation of the democratic values behind freedom of expression.” She said the court’s reasoning “pushes back against attempts to silence divergent voices by restricting the ability of some media to publish or even to exist,” and warned that such forms of state pressure can contribute to “the spiral of silence,” where minority opinions gradually disappear from public debate.

No monetary damages were awarded, as the applicants did not request just satisfaction. The judgment is final and cannot be appealed.