In a recent judgment from the UK High Court, Google was granted an injunction to prohibit Russian entities from enforcing judgments against it in Russia. The judgments led to the seizure of Russian assets worth more than £50 million belonging to Google Russia (a subsidiary), and punitive fines to the value of $20 decillion (20 followed by 33 zeros), which is more than the world’s entire GDP.
The UK decision grants Google LLC and Google Ireland Limited an anti-enforcement injunction and an anti-anti-suit injunction against the Russian judgments.
Read the full decision here: Google LLC & Anor v NAO Tsargard Media & Ors [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm)
Brief facts
Google had closed various ‘pro-Russia’ Google and YouTube accounts, and refused to restore them.
The Defendants were entities close to the Russian state, subject to Western sanctions as a result of their support for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine. Some of the closed channels were owned by a sanctioned Russian businessman, Konstantin Malofeev.
The jurisdiction arguments
Google and YouTube’s terms and conditions required disputes to be brought to court in England, or that disputes should be referred to arbitration in London.
However, the Defendants began proceedings before the Arbitrazh Court in Moscow and obtained Russian Judgments. It was alleged that these Russian proceedings were commenced and pursued in breach of the exclusive English jurisdiction agreements.
Google LLC and Google Ireland challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitrazh Court, but the Arbitrazh Court found that it had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code. Article 248.1 was introduced for the specific purpose of enabling Russian individuals and organisations to choose to litigate in the Russian courts even if they have contracted to litigate or arbitrate elsewhere.
The UK Court found that it had jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to CPR 6.33(2B)(b) or CPR 62.5(2A), on the basis that the relevant contracts contain an English jurisdiction clause or an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in England & Wales. The primary basis on which final relief was sought was to enforce the Claimants’ contractual rights.
Mr Justice Henshaw concluded that, in the context of these disputes, the YouTube jurisdiction clause had effect as an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court.
Nonetheless, the Defendants contended that the Claimants submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts and that was a reason why no injunction should be granted. Mr Justice Henshaw explained that the general rule is that “the party alleged to have submitted to the foreign jurisdiction must have taken some step which is only necessary or useful if the party was not objecting to the jurisdiction. A step that is not consistent with or relevant to the jurisdiction challenge will usually be a submission to the jurisdiction.”
He found that the Claimants challenged the Russian courts at all stages of the proceedings in all three cases in which they appeared. They did so actively and “not merely as a matter of rote.”
The Judge therefore concluded that the Claimants did not submit to Russian jurisdiction in any of the cases.
The astronomical penalties
The Russian Court imposed so-called “Astreinte Penalties” upon the Google entities. These penalties rapidly increase with every day they are not paid.
The sums imposed by the Astreinte Penalties had accrued to such a level that the judge described them as “of an unprecedented magnitude.” The liquidator of Google Russia stated in May 2024 that the value of some of the Astreinte Penalties amounted to the pounds sterling equivalent of around £1.85 octillion, which is about 20 trillion times greater than the estimated GDP of all the economies in the world. A more recent estimate put the figure at the equivalent of £102 nonillion (a nonillion being a 1 followed by 30 zeros).
The wider picture
The level of the fines have fuelled allegations that Russian courts have levied unprecedented fines and arbitrary legal penalties against Google in order to limit access to information, and as punishment for compliance with international sanctions against Russian individuals and organisations.
The Defendants have also tried to enforce the Russian Judgments in various other jurisdictions around the world, including: Algeria, Egypt, Hungary, Krygystan, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and Vietnam.
Russian legislation to seize jurisdiction
The Russian’s Court’s power to seize jurisdiction is derived from amendments to the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation introduced through Articles 248.1 and 248.2 in 2020. These amendments were introduced in the wake of sanctions imposed on Russia, under the belief that sanctioned Russians do not received fair and impartial treatment in “unfriendly” jurisdictions.
The Russian Courts have used this power to disapply the contractual dispute resolution clauses in contracts in order to take jurisdiction over various international disputes. The Russian Courts have also used this power to make orders against non-Russian parties, which prevent them from pursuing claims outside Russia and imposing fines on them if they do.
The new EU Sanctions Package
This Google hearing began in mid-August 2024, before the latest package of EU Sanctions was introduced.
However, on 16 December 2024, the EU adopted the 15th package of sanctions against Russia.
One of the measures is designed to safeguard European parties from legal actions in Russia, such as the one faced by Google in this case.
There is now an enforcement ban against Russian anti-suit injunctions, which means that EU Member states are not allowed to recognise or enforce Russian court decisions. EU Member states also have protection from penalties for non-compliance with Russian anti-suit injunctions.
Enforceability of the UK decision
All of these conflicting laws and decisions make for an uncertain outlook on the enforceability of these decisions.
The anti-enforcement injunction is likely to be unenforceable in Russia. The Russian judgments appear to be unenforceable in the UK. There is an apparent deadlock between the legal systems, with contradictory and likely mutually unenforceable decisions.
In the judgment in the UK proceedings, Judge Henshaw cited Professor Kryvoi’s evidence on the Russian Court’s approach to foreign anti-suit injunctions as follows:
“Foreign judicial anti-suit injunctions (ASIs), including those from English courts, are generally not enforceable in Russia. Russian Courts do not recognise the enforceability of interim relief like ASIs, as they are not considered final judicial acts. Additionally, enforcing such ASIs would conflict with Russian public policy, particularly in sanctions-related cases involving Russian entities under Law No. 171-FZ. Russian Courts have consistently ignored foreign ASIs, assuming jurisdiction over disputes even when a foreign court has issued an ASI.”
Despite a UK ASI decision, entities with assets in Russia could find that those assets are exposed to seizure. Given the Russian Court’s wide-ranging powers, it may also be the case that assets outside of Russia are also vulnerable.
