There are some important points to mention: * the court explicitly stated that this case was about transferring personal data (the IP) without prior consent. I

There are some important points to mention: * the court explicitly stated that this case was about transferring personal data (the IP) without prior consent. If the user had consented, there would have been no case. * the court explicitly criticized using google, because google a) is known to collect user information and b) google is a US company and the European courts have found the US is lacking in privacy laws. So my reading is that the judgement would not apply if you transferred such data in certain circumstances, e.g. if you transferred such data to provide "essential services" and you have contracts with the data processor about how they can use and store the data that are in accordance with German privacy laws. * the court further stated that it sees no reason to transfer such personal data, as the website could have easily provided the fonts itself. This seems to be a crucial part of the courts reasoning, as it is a ruling on the plaintiff's claim that this use of google was exempt because it was "necessary" to provide the service.