Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.) | Report on Takedown Requests at Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.)

Status
13.31% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
7
Resolution details
Company ticker
GOOGL
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Digital rights
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board of Directors issue a report (within a reasonable time frame, at reasonable cost, and excluding confidential information) assessing the feasibility of publicly disclosing on an annual basis, by jurisdiction, the list of delisted, censored, downgraded, proactively penalized, or blacklisted terms, queries or sites that the company implements in response to government requests.
Supporting statement
Google’s Artificial Intelligence Principles state the company will not pursue technologies that cause harm, “that gather or use information for surveillance” or “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”



There is increasing evidence of a contradiction between Google’s principles and its actions.



Buzzfeed reported: “According to Google’s own stats, the Russian government has made 175 separate requests for the search engine to remove sites it has banned, totaling more than 160,000 separate URLS...About 80% of the total requests...resulted in removal.” PEN America said: “we need far more transparency regarding which sites Google has removed from its search results, as well as the internal evaluation and criteria that Google used for determining whether these sites should be taken down.”



ARTICLE 19 submitted expert opinion to Russia’s Constitutional Court regarding the removal of articles on hate crimes from Google search, saying: “search engine operators are prohibited by the Law from disclosing any information pertaining to the applicant’s request...this constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of expression… and a breach of their rights to a fair trial and to an effective remedy.”



In addition, reports of proposed amendments to India’s Information Technology Act indicate that it may soon be mandatory for firms like Alphabet to proactively deploy technology to suppress content.



Google states its Transparency Reports “provide a glimpse at the wide range of content removal requests that we receive, but they are not comprehensive.”



In 2018, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression’s report stated: “the authoritative global standard for ensuring freedom of expression on [companies’] platforms is human rights law, not the varying laws of States or their own private interests, and [companies] should re-evaluate their content standards accordingly.”



Proponents suggest the report assess the feasibility of:



• Incorporating into Google’s Transparency Report the substantive content of government requests, including whether the request was met, and criteria used to guide decisions;
• Notifying customers of content affected by government requests.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Anima Sgr For
Universities Superannuation Scheme - USS For USS would support additional information on the Company's policies on takedown requests.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.