The Moscow arbitration court has made a significant ruling by limiting the judicial penalties imposed on Google by Russian television channels for blocking their YouTube channels. According to Valery Talyarovsky, representing OOO 'Google,' the court decided earlier this month to restrict the period for accruing these penalties, which can have astronomical figures associated with them.
The arbitration court's decision came on January 15, 2025, and primarily established the accrual of penalties starting only from October 18, 2023, the date when OOO 'Google' was declared bankrupt. The court concluded after reviewing the situation, recognizing the company's inability to comply with previous court orders post-bankruptcy.
Before this pivotal decision, the judicial penalties estimated on January 15, 2025, amounted to 1.81 duodecillion rubles (an astounding figure composed of 39 zeros). Of this gargantuan sum, the portion accruing before the pivotal October date was calculated at 91.5 quintillion rubles, which is still the sum of 18 zeros.
Bringing attention to the situation, Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary of the President of Russia, commented on the nature of the penalties and the corresponding claims, referring to them as symbolic. "Although this is a concretely formulated amount — I cannot even pronounce this number — it serves more as symbolism. This should prompt Google’s management to pay attention to this and correct the situation... That’s the best thing the company can do," Peskov stated, highlighting the larger political and social implications of this legal matter.
The backdrop of this court case stems from the refusal by Google, the American tech giant, to reinstate the YouTube accounts of 17 Russian television channels after they were blocked. The channels involved include prominent outlets such as 'Zvezda,' 'Perviy kanal,' VGTRK, 'TV-Center,' and NTW, alongside 'GPM Razvlekatelnoye Televidenie,' 'Telekanal 360,' and the Fund for Orthodox Television. Notably, the lawsuit also involves IP Simonyan M.S., which oversees the channel of RIA Novosti’s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan.
Previously, Russian courts mandated Google to restore these YouTube channels within two months following the decision, with penalties for non-compliance set at 100,000 rubles per day. The court had also made it clear through its orders, including the potential for doubling the penalty every week, how serious they were about ensuring compliance. There are currently no restrictions placed on the total amount of fines Google could potentially face, with enforcement continuing until all court orders are satisfied.
The court's decision to limit accrued penalties also spelled bad news for Google’s argument for excluding the affected channels from the creditor registry. The court rejected Google's petition aimed at nullifying the claims of these television channels, indicating strong judicial backing for the channels' positions.
According to Talyarovsky, the creditors, which include these television channels, might only be able to count on the total assets available from Google within the jurisdiction of the court decision, amounting to the capitalization of its parent company, Alphabet. The NASDAQ valuation places Alphabet’s market capitalization at approximately $3.2 trillion, which is about 270 trillion rubles.
The backdrop of this legal battle highlights the significant tension between Western tech companies and Russian authorities, particularly following geopolitical developments, including the military operations initiated by Russia in Ukraine. The blocking of YouTube accounts for all state channels occurred soon after the start of military engagement, which continues to impact digital content dynamics and freedom of expression within Russia. The pressures and repercussions from this court ruling might force Google to reconsider its operational strategies within the Russian market.
This ruling may not only influence how Google responds to regulatory demands from Russia but also serve as an implication of how international companies navigate the political and legal landscapes of countries with differing governance models. The case marks another chapter in the fraught relations between major technology firms and local regulators, adding to the narrative of digital diplomacy and information control.
