I have earlier reviewed the decision of Chief Master Marsh in  EWHC 550 (Ch) Wheat v Alphabet /Google Inc and Monaco Telecom. In Wheat v Google LLC  EWHC 27 (Ch), this decision was confirmed upon appeal (on the copyright issues see here).
Google is involved in the litigation because claimant alleges that Google’s search engine algorithm has done little to address hotlinking practice, which, it is said, facilitates copyright infringement.
Both cases are a good example of the standards for serving out of jurisdiction, essentially, to what degree courts of the UK should accept jurisdiction against non-UK defendants (here: with claimants resident in the UK). The Brussels I Recast Regulation is not engaged in either cases for neither Monaco nor Alphabet are EU based. Mr Wheat is resident in England and his business is based in England. Any damage as a result of hotlinkers’ infringement of his copyright is very likely to be and to have been suffered in England; there is in fact evidence that damage has been suffered. It is also clear to Keyser J that England is clearly the appropriate forum and a forum non conveniens argument therefore going nowhere. However the case to answer by Google, like Marsh CM concluded, is simply too weak nay non-existant: following extensive review of secondary EU law and CJEU copyright law, Keyser J holds that the acts complained of against Google cannot be unlicensed communications, because they are not communications to a new public (all potential users of the unrestricted Website constituting one public, so far as concerns a case involving communication via hotlinking) and are not communications by a new technical means (the internet constituting a single technical means).
No case to answer by Google. No service out of jurisdiction.