1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04984-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

PROVISIONAL ORDER GRANTING

9 v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

10 LATAM AIRLINES GROUP S.A. INC., et al., [Re: ECF No. 13] 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Google LLC's (“Plaintiff” or “Google”) Motion for 14 Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. No. 13 (“Mot”). Defendants LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. and 15 Tam Linhas Aereas S.A.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or “LATAM”) filed a brief in opposition. 16 Dkt. No. 30 (“Opp”). Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion. Dkt. No. 32 (“Reply”). The 17 Court held a hearing on the motion on August 28, 2025. Dkt No. 40. As discussed on the record, 18 the Court has determined that Google LLC has demonstrated its entitlement to a preliminary 19 injunction. Due to the undersigned’s unavailability over the next two weeks and the need for 20 immediate relief, the Court issues this provisional order which will be augmented by a fully 21 reasoned order as soon as possible. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Preliminary 22 Injunction is GRANTED. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 An injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing 25 that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 26 (2008) (citation omitted). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish [1] that 27 he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 1 in the public interest.” Id. at 20. “If a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions 2 going to the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary 3 injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, and the 4 other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th 5 Cir. 2014) (internal alterations and citations omitted). 6 For the reasons articulated in Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and stated on 7 the record by the Court at the hearing, the Court finds that Google is likely to succeed on the 8 merits of its claims that the Global Removal Order violates Section 230 of the Communications 9 Decency Act, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the SPEECH Act, and 10 trespasses on international comity. See Mot. at 6–16. The Court notes that Defendants do not 11 contest any of these claims. See Opp. at 1. The Court also finds that Plaintiff is likely to suffer 12 irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor, and 13 that an injunction is in the public interest. 14 II. ORDER 15 The Court adopts the proposed language submitted by Plaintiff and reviewed by 16 Defendants. ECF. No. 42. 17 18 NOW THEREFORE, LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. and Tam Linhas Aereas S.A. are 19 HEREBY ENJOINED FROM: 20 1. Enforcing or in any way attempting to enforce the orders from the Superior Court of 21 Justice in Brazil dated December 3, 2024; March 21, 2025; and June 23, 2025, or any 22 subsequent orders issued by the Superior Court of Justice in Brazil in this dispute that 23 would affect the availability of the Testimonial Videos1 in the United States (collectively, 24 the “Global Removal Order”), in any court in or of the United States of America; 25 2. Enforcing or in any way attempting to enforce or seek penalties for any alleged failure to 26 comply with the Global Removal Order in any court in or of the Federative Republic of 27 1 Brazil in any manner that would affect the availability of the Testimonial Videos in the 2 United States. 3 4 A reasoned order will follow. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 29, 2025 ° tai LABSON FREEMAN 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12

13

© 15 16

it

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28