The relevant regulator not the courts. Also in this case there was no harm done and certainly the plaintiffs can't prove any.
Google acknowledged the bug that was fixed back in early 2012!! this lawsuit is a money grab, most of them are.
Google acknowledged the bug that was fixed back in early 2012!! this lawsuit is a money grab, most of them are.
Here in the US, that's a non-starter.
There is also something to be said about the general societal ill of feeling entitled to compensation for the slightest of perceived harms.
(2) This is not an imaginary slight, a corporation wrote a piece of code with a clear intent to bypass a security setting on a user's device. Would the roles be reversed, charges would be brought against human without the need to prove harm or harmful intent -- DCMA is broad enough for that. Why should GOOG be less burdened by its unethical behaviour?
this seems almost non-sequitur. either way, it is the court's purpose to ascertain harm and any consequent penalties (if any).