//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });

Google Sanctioned by US Court for Second Time in One Week

Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!

published April 03, 2023

By Maria Laus, Author - LawCrossing

Google Sanctioned by US Court for Second Time in One Week

US Court Sanctions Google for Failing to Comply with Court Order

Google LLC has been sanctioned by a US court for a second time within a few days. The latest decision, unsealed on Wednesday, involves a ruling by a judge stating that the Alphabet Inc subsidiary did not adhere to a court order last year in a data-privacy class action within the specified time frame. US Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen ruled in San Jose, California. It is linked to a class action alleging that Google illegally tracked users in private or "incognito" mode when they used the company's Chrome browsers.

Second Sanction: Google Fails to Preserve Evidence in Antitrust Litigation

Google LLC faced two separate legal decisions in California this week. On Tuesday, US District Judge James Donato ruled that the company had failed to preserve employees' "chat" records as evidence in antitrust litigation. This led to the plaintiffs' lawyers being awarded legal fees whose amount will be determined later. However, Google has challenged these claims.

Data Privacy Case: Google Accused of Tracking Users Without Consent

In a separate data privacy case, Google has been accused of unlawfully tracking users in private or "incognito" mode. The company has argued that its Chrome browser users had consented to the data collection. A Google spokesperson stated that the company had provided and disclosed numerous documents and discoveries.

Google Fails to Meet Court Deadline and Faces Sanctions in Data Privacy Case

This recent ruling against Google, issued by US Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen in San Jose, California, pertains to a court order from last year, which sanctions Google for failing to comply with a deadline. This is not the first time Van Keulen penalized Google in the same case.

The latest ruling states that Google did not comply with the deadline, and therefore, the company is barred from relying on certain employee witnesses in the case. Additionally, Google has been instructed to pay fees for two experts working for the plaintiffs and a fine of $79,000.

The plaintiffs in the consumer lawsuit seek an injunction that may require Google to delete private browsing information, among other things. The trial is scheduled to take place in November. The plaintiffs' lawyers did not respond immediately to requests for comments.

Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!