Your impression isn’t wrong, it is a jurisdictional issue, but let’s say you are right generally; however, it’s law so: Consider small claims handle most evict

Your impression isn’t wrong, it is a jurisdictional issue, but let’s say you are right generally; however, it’s law so: Consider small claims handle most evictions, your impression would be right an eviction isn’t an “injunction”, but what is an eviction in practice if not an enjoining the tenant from continued possession and an order to vacate a property. This case might just seek relief in the form of a monetary judgement In the complaint, but in practice what is that judgement but an injunction/order for google to stop any continued act causing damages. As I noted at pretrial the parties are encouraged by the court to settle and usually at pretrial/trail the parties do a mandatory mediation (again that is jurisdictional but either way statistically Over 90% of cases will settle). In practice these settlement agreements will typically reflect additional terms such as agreement to stop engaging in X or otherwise continuing any act that damages the party as outlined in the complaint, and terms denying admission for any of the claims as outlined in the complaint. In practice image it playing out where the damaged party here gets an award for monetary damages against google and Google pays but they allow the impersonating “business” on google maps to continue to Impersonate the the damaged party by associating the website/marks with the impersonating business. Google may play the nameless, faceless corporation with no decision makers, but to don’t let them fool you. I personally imagine this thread hitting the front page Here gets google to do something.