Home > Anti-Piracy > Site Blocking >

Google has removed dozens of new Sci-Hub domain names from its search results in the United States. Unlike typical DMCA takedowns, the removals were triggered by a dated court order that was not enforced for several years. This appears to be one of the first times Google has deindexed an entire pirate site in the U.S. based on a 'site blocking' style injunction.

In 2017, American Chemical Society (ACS), a leading source of academic publications in the field of chemistry, won a lawsuit against Sci-Hub and its operator, Alexandra Elbakyan.

The ‘Pirate Bay of Science’ had failed to appear at a Virginia federal court, resulting in an easy win for the publisher and a $4.8 million default judgment award for damages.

A Broad Anti-Piracy Injunction (2018)

More important, perhaps, was the broad permanent injunction that the Virginia federal court signed off on in 2017. This order effectively gave ACS free rein to take down existing and newly registered Sci-Hub domain names.

The injunction also required all parties “in active concert or participation” with Sci-Hub to “cease facilitating access” to these domain names, including search engines, hosting providers, ISPs, and domain name registrars, the order clarified.

On paper, this injunction enabled ACS to request American ISPs and search engines to ‘block’ existing and future Sci-Hub domains. However, there was no sign that the publisher was doing so. Aside from a few suspended domains, Sci-Hub remained widely accessible.

Whether ACS did not feel the need to enforce the order against search engines and other intermediaries or if these companies actively objected to the requested actions was unknown. And as time passed, the injunction became a distant memory, at least for a few years.

Google Complies with Zombie Injunction? (2025)

Earlier this week we spotted a unique request in the Lumen Database, where the 2018 injunction was cited. The notice in question asks Google to deindex 34 (sub)domains linked to Sci-Hub.

None of these domains were referenced in the 2018 injunction but are indeed linked to Sci-Hub. Many of the partially redacted domains appear to be domain variations of the scihubtw.tw mirror network, such as edu.scihubtw.tw and freeus.scihubtw.tw.

It’s surprising to see this type of enforcement seven years after the injunction was issued, but the request is legitimate. Google is certainly taking it seriously and has deindexed these domains from its search results in America. In other countries, the same domains remain accessible.

First “US-Only” Sci-Hub Removals

The December 2 notice was sent by UK law firm Wiggin LLP, which sent a similar request in September this year, targeting a few dozen other Sci-Hub domains. In total, we spotted seven notices, with the earliest dating back to 2022.

The results of these removals are also clearly visible in Google search. Those who search for Sci-Hub in the U.S. will see the following notice at the bottom of the results.

It’s not clear why it took five years before ACS urged Google to take action in response to the injunction. However, these removals are similar to Google’s removal of pirate site domains in other countries in response to ISP-blocking orders. Voluntary cooperation by Google was uncovered shortly before ACS first notified the search engine.

“In Active Concert”?

Google’s voluntary cooperation with ISP blocking orders in Australia, the Netherlands, France, the UK, and elsewhere also brings up an important question. Is Google cooperating with the permanent injunction in the U.S. because it feels legally compelled to do so, or is that a voluntary gesture too?

The 2018 injunction requires all parties “in active concert or participation” with Sci-Hub to take action. While search engines are mentioned as an example, Google and other tech companies have previously argued that neutral third-party services are not necessarily “in active concert or participation”.

It is likely that Google maintains this stance, opting to voluntarily comply with orders targeting other third parties. That would mirror its response to site-blocking orders elsewhere.

We contacted Google hoping to hear answers to these questions, but the company did not respond to our request for comment.