Google LLC v. NAO Tsargrad Media

Background

Google terminated the Google Account associated with NAO Tsargrad Media in 2020. Google said the termination was required by U.S. sanctions law and its internal policies. Tsargrad then sued Google in a Russian court, alleging that the termination violated Google’s Terms of Service. The Russian court entered judgment requiring Google to restore Tsargrad’s account and imposing a compounding monetary penalty called an astreinte. The judgment survived appeal after the Russian Supreme Court denied review.

The Google Terms contained a forum-selection clause requiring disputes relating to the Terms to be brought in federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, California. The Terms also contained an exception for disputes that applicable local law prevents from being resolved in a California court. Tsargrad relied on Article 248.1 of Russia’s Arbitrazh Procedural Code, which addresses disputes involving persons subject to sanctions and makes certain non-Russian forum-selection clauses unenforceable in Russian courts.

Google sued for breach of contract and sought a preliminary injunction. It requested an anti-enforcement injunction barring Tsargrad from enforcing the Russian judgment anywhere in the world, and an anti-anti-suit injunction barring Tsargrad from asking Russian courts to stop this federal case.

Legal standards

For the anti-enforcement request, the court applied the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions: likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest. The court rejected using the less demanding test for anti-suit injunctions because enforcement of a foreign judgment involves the recognition policies of the country where enforcement is sought and is not simply a private contract dispute.

For the anti-anti-suit request, the court applied the test used for anti-suit injunctions. That test asks whether the foreign and domestic proceedings involve the same parties and issues, whether at least one recognized factor supports an injunction, and whether the effect on international judicial cooperation would be tolerable.

Recognition of the Russian judgment

The court held that the Russian judgment could not have preclusive effect in this case because the court first had to determine whether to recognize it. Applying California law, the court considered both principles governing recognition of foreign judgments and California’s Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act because the Russian judgment included both an order to restore account access and an astreinte.

The court found two grounds for nonrecognition. First, Tsargrad likely violated the Google Terms’ forum-selection clause by filing in Russia. Second, recognizing the judgment would conflict with U.S. public policy because Article 248.1 was used to bypass the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and the Russian proceedings treated U.S. courts as an inadequate forum. The court concluded that the Russian judgment was not entitled to recognition and therefore did not bar Google’s contract claim.

Breach and ongoing enforcement

The court found that Tsargrad likely breached the forum-selection clause. It reasoned that Article 248.1 gave Tsargrad an option to proceed in a Russian court but did not prevent Tsargrad from filing in California. The clause’s local-law exception therefore did not apply. The court also rejected Tsargrad’s argument that Google waived the clause by participating in the Russian proceedings, finding that Google’s actions—including asserting the clause in Russia—were consistent with preserving its forum-selection rights.

Because the Russian lawsuit was over, the past filing alone could not support injunctive relief. The court instead found that the Google Terms contain an implied contractual term barring a party from enforcing a judgment obtained in violation of the forum-selection clause. The court concluded that Tsargrad’s efforts to enforce the Russian judgment were likely an ongoing breach of that implied term.

Preliminary-injunction factors

The court found that Google showed irreparable harm because enforcement efforts would force it to litigate in forums it had agreed to avoid, depriving it of the benefit of its bargained-for forum. The court rejected Tsargrad’s unclean-hands argument, finding that Tsargrad had not provided competent evidence establishing the alleged fraudulent transfer or showing that Google concealed material facts during the temporary-restraining-order proceedings.

The court also rejected Tsargrad’s delay argument. It found that Google had a reasonable explanation for waiting until Tsargrad began enforcement efforts and that Google filed this action shortly after being served in the first enforcement proceeding. The court found the equities favored an injunction, describing Tsargrad’s enforcement campaign as vexatious and oppressive.

International comity—the respect courts give to the judicial acts and policies of other countries—weighed against a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction. The court nevertheless found that the other preliminary-injunction factors outweighed those concerns because the Russian judgment resulted from efforts to evade U.S. jurisdiction, involved an extraordinarily large amount, and was being pursued as part of a campaign of litigation against Google.

Rulings and scope of relief

The court granted Google’s requests for judicial notice. It granted in part Google’s motion for a preliminary injunction and issued an anti-enforcement injunction preventing Tsargrad from enforcing its Russian judgment anywhere in the world except Russia.

The preliminary injunction requires Tsargrad to maintain existing pauses on enforcement proceedings, move within three weeks to pause any pending enforcement proceedings that are not already paused, and refrain from starting new enforcement proceedings. It also bars Tsargrad from enforcing the judgment against Google’s affiliates and from asking Russian courts to enjoin this federal lawsuit. The court did not order Tsargrad to dismiss pending enforcement proceedings at this preliminary stage.

The court separately granted the anti-anti-suit injunction. It denied Tsargrad’s request for a bond by finding no realistic likelihood of harm from the injunction. The opinion’s footer contains a case-number inconsistency, but the order’s caption identifies the case as No. 5:24-cv-05423-EJD.