> Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. Good ones sure are. But OP saying "Google should appeal" implies OP is aware of one

> Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. Good ones sure are. But OP saying "Google should appeal" implies OP is aware of one solid such reason, a reason why the French court was wrong, and Google was wrong to comply. Instead they just mentioned precedents, lower courts, or that you're free to ignore a legal court order because there's no "DNS regulation". I get that Google has a vested interest to find any way to make it work because it supports their business. But OP's statement sounded to me more like "I don't understand the law but don't like the result so it should be changed", with no solid reasoning of any kind at the time of the statement.