I really think it is some kind of publicity stunt from the prosecution and won't hold in court.
However if I was in charge of google, and my executives were found guilty I would have my side of the story translated and displayed instead of any google service for all .it users. Avoid further risk.
I think this has a good side, reminding people that countries still exists and are different from each other, and those differences are not only holiday photo landscapes.
I don't know if it's a good thing that some countries handle things more stupidly than others. If the differences were value-free you might have a really strong claim there, but the good side is vanishingly small in the sea of colossal buffoonery that this whole situation represents.
In this instance yes, but the EU keeping (or surrendering in the case of air travel) personal data from careless (or plain mischievous) hold by foreigners is a good thing.
I mean it's not only about gun nuts cowboys vs corrupted italians, it's also about integrating the culture when you enter a country. Germans have a German way of doing stuff, Italian too, French too. All are different.
As seen from this side of the pond, free speech and gun fandom (and the mix of both) are just a costly (in human lives) buffoonery too, that makes no sense when compared to the prudery about sex.
I mean it's cultural differences and it touches business too, yes. A french company sending racy ads in he US would cause quite a stir, leaving a shitty video 2 months after it have been reported in Italy gets you in trouble. And when you set foot in a country you try to adapt. I've seen many companies "adapt" their prices "the european way" (that often mean 1€ = $1) maybe now it's time for adapting the rest too.
using the same logic, couldn't they also take paper manufacturers to court, because someone wrote or drew something offensive on a piece of paper once upon a time? i don't understand the reasoning behind this.
If you buy a notepad, the paper manufacturer doesn't own it anymore and has no control over it.
Google cannot claim it doesn't have control over its own servers.
A more apt brick-and-mortars analogy would be a theater that would let anyone use its projector, as long as ads chosen by the theater are displayed alongside. Surely in most countries the theater would be liable for showing illegal movies, no matter what they'd written in their disclaimers.
However if I was in charge of google, and my executives were found guilty I would have my side of the story translated and displayed instead of any google service for all .it users. Avoid further risk.