Disclosure of 'Personal Information' Transferred to Third Parties... Controversy Over Application of Domestic Law
Uncertain Outcome of Multiple Lawsuits Demanding Information Disclosure... Google Continues to Revise Privacy Policy
A decision on whether Google and Google Korea will disclose the details of Korean users' information handed over to U.S. intelligence agencies is expected nine years after the lawsuit began.
According to the legal community on the 12th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) will hold a ruling session on the appeal trial of a lawsuit filed by six domestic human rights activists, including Mr. Oh, against Google and Google Korea, demanding "disclosure of the details of personal information provided to third parties," on the 13th.
This lawsuit began in 2014 when Mr. Oh and others demanded Google to disclose information under the Information Disclosure Act. They claimed, "Google provided user information to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)'s PRISM program, and as a result, their personal information and Gmail usage details may have been transferred." 'PRISM' is an NSA surveillance program that collects internet information such as emails from fiber optic cables passing through the United States.
However, Google refused Mr. Oh and others' demands, stating, "We only provide user information to government agencies in accordance with the law, and we do not disclose whether a specific user was subject to an information provision request." Consequently, Mr. Oh and others filed a lawsuit demanding disclosure of the information.
The trial focused on issues such as whether Google, headquartered in the U.S., must comply with domestic laws regarding personal information protection; whether de-identified information qualifies as personal information subject to disclosure; and whether the lawsuit against Google's headquarters violates the international jurisdiction agreement granting exclusive jurisdiction to U.S. courts.
The lower courts ruled that even if users agreed through terms and conditions to resolve legal disputes under foreign laws, domestic law could still apply to Google, and thus the domestic courts have jurisdiction. They also ruled that de-identified information, if combined with other information to identify individuals, qualifies as personal information and should be disclosed.
However, the first trial court rejected the claim for disclosure of information provision details against Google Korea. On the other hand, the second trial court considered that since Google Korea applied for a location information business license in Korea and is the registrant of the domestic Google service address, it has the obligation to disclose the status of personal information provision, excluding non-disclosure matters, just like Google's headquarters.
Nevertheless, even if the Supreme Court rules, like the lower courts, that Google has an obligation to disclose the details of Korean users' information transferred to third parties, it is uncertain whether this will lead to a class-action lawsuit demanding information disclosure from Google. Google has revised its privacy policy for Korean users during this lawsuit, and if it ultimately loses, it may revise the policy further, so the likelihood of related lawsuits continuing is considered low.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
