I'm confused about the text. It is not obvious, what the defendant actually did. The assumption from most people seem to be that they used a `<script>` tag or

I'm confused about the text. It is not obvious, what the defendant actually did. The assumption from most people seem to be that they used a `<script>` tag or the like, with a Google URL. But the text does not imply that. On the contrary, it repeatedly uses the word "weitergabe" and "weiterleitung" ("forwarding"), which is just not accurate for this process - it seems to imply that the defendant actively made a connection to Google and sending the IP over it. Of course, this might just be an artifact of the legalese and non-technical phrasing of the verdict. But does anyone know what actually happened, on a technical level?