Google sues LATAM Airlines in US over Brazilian YouTube video dispute
By Blake Brittain
(Reuters) -Alphabet's Google sued Chile-based LATAM Airlines in U.S. federal court in San Jose, California on Thursday, seeking a declaration that Brazilian courts cannot force the tech giant to take down a YouTube video in the United States that accused a LATAM employee of sexually abusing a child.
Google in the lawsuit said that LATAM was attempting to "make an end-run" around protections for free speech under the U.S. Constitution by suing in Brazil to force the video's removal worldwide.
Spokespeople for LATAM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Google's allegations.
Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company has "long supported the legal principle that courts in a country have jurisdiction over content available in that country, but not over what content should be available in other countries."
Right-wing social media companies Trump Media and Rumble filed a similar lawsuit in Florida in February against a Brazilian judge who had ordered them to remove the U.S.-based accounts of a leading supporter of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. A federal judge decided in the case that the companies were not required to comply with the order in the United States.
According to Google's lawsuit, U.S. citizen and Florida resident Raymond Moreira posted two YouTube videos in 2018 of his 6-year-old son outlining allegations of sexual abuse that the child said he experienced from a LATAM employee while traveling as an unaccompanied minor.
Moreira sued LATAM in Florida in 2020 over the alleged abuse, which led to a confidential settlement.
LATAM sued Google in Brazil in 2018 seeking an order to remove the video from YouTube, which Google owns. Brazil's highest court is set to consider next week whether it has the authority to order Google to take down the video worldwide.
Google asked the court in California on Thursday to declare that LATAM cannot force the tech giant to remove the video in the United States.
Canada's Supreme Court upheld an order for Google to remove some search results worldwide in a separate case in 2018. A California judge halted that order's U.S. enforcement in 2017.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Second judge blocks parts of Trump order overhauling elections
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from implementing parts of President Trump's executive order seeking to overhaul elections. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper granted a request from a group of Democratic attorneys general to halt five sections of the executive order, most focused on Trump's new requirements for proof of citizenship to register to vote in U.S. elections. Casper is the second judge to block portions of Trump's directive. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction in April in three consolidated cases, which also focused on the new proof of citizenship requirements. 'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' wrote Casper, an appointee of former President Obama. 'The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created [Election Assistance Commission (EAC)] is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration,' she continued. Casper enjoined the administration from implementing new rules mandating documentary proof of citizenship in federal voter registration forms. She also blocked conditioning any funding for states from the EAC — an independent election administration agency — on their adoption of a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day. She also blocked a directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi to take civil or criminal action against states that violate any provisions by counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for president or members of Congress. The portions of the order relating to ballots received after Election Day apply to 13 of the 19 states that filed the challenge, she ruled. 'There is nothing in the text of the Election Day statutes that bars the Ballot Receipt States from counting ballots received in accordance with their ballot receipt laws or that provides for civil enforcement or criminal action by the Attorney General against the Ballot Receipt States,' the judge wrote in her 44-page opinion. Trump's executive order, signed in March, said it was his administration's policy to enforce federal law and 'to protect the integrity of our election process.' The president has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of American elections, most notably the 2020 election won by former President Biden. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's election executive order, siding with Democrats who called it overreach
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional. The Republican president's March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. The attorneys general said the directive 'usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.' The White House defended the order as 'standing up for free, fair and honest elections' and called proof of citizenship a 'commonsense' requirement. Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Casper wrote. Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, 'there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.' Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would 'burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs' to update procedures. Messages seeking a response from the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned. The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump's election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. The order is the culmination of Trump's longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for 'millions of people who voted illegally.' Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted. Also blocked in Friday's ruling was part of the order that sought to require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024. Trump's order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump's power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the 'times, places and manner' of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday's ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections. During a hearing earlier this month on the states' request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump's order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year's midterm elections and how much it would cost the states. Justice Department lawyer Bridget O'Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation. O'Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count. Christina A. Cassidy, The Associated Press
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Second federal judge sides against Trump's election executive order
A second federal judge on Friday blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at overhauling elections in the U.S. Trump's March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. "The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday's ruling. A group of Democratic state attorneys general had challenged the executive order as unconstitutional. Top Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship In Federal Elections The attorneys general said the directive "usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat." Read On The Fox News App The White House defended the order as "standing up for free, fair and honest elections" and called proof of citizenship a "commonsense" requirement. "Despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern, developed nations, as well as those still developing," Trump wrote in the executive order, titled "Preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections." "India and Brazil, for example, are tying voter identification to a biometric database, while the United States largely relies on self-attestation for citizenship. In tabulating votes, Germany and Canada require use of paper ballots, counted in public by local officials, which substantially reduces the number of disputes as compared to the American patchwork of voting methods that can lead to basic chain-of-custody problems," he continued. Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship In Federal Elections "Further, while countries like Denmark and Sweden sensibly limit mail-in voting to those unable to vote in person and do not count late-arriving votes regardless of the date of postmark, many American elections now feature mass voting by mail, with many officials accepting ballots without postmarks or those received well after Election Day," he also said. Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, "there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship." Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would "burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs" to update procedures. The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump's election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Second federal judge sides against Trump's election executive order
