Let's say I go to a restaurant, get food poisoning, and sue the restaurant. Turns out the employee didn't wash their hands (or at least, that's the legal theory).
If the restaurant has signs like that up, and consistent messaging to their employees, and new employee training, and other "best practices", then I may still be able to sue them and win. But if they don't have all that stuff, I may be able to sue them for treble damages because of negligence.
That is, such measures may not remove liability, but it limits it.
Note well: IANAL. Others who know more, feel free to offer corrections.
I agree with that. I think the fundamental difference in Google's case is that the suing party is different from the addressee of the warning. Moreover the suing party is powerful and the addressee is completely negligible. Hopefully courts sees that, but who knows?
If the restaurant has signs like that up, and consistent messaging to their employees, and new employee training, and other "best practices", then I may still be able to sue them and win. But if they don't have all that stuff, I may be able to sue them for treble damages because of negligence.
That is, such measures may not remove liability, but it limits it.
Note well: IANAL. Others who know more, feel free to offer corrections.