You pretend that Google displaying more than the headline and the link would keep people away from visiting the news site.
That is just outright wrong.

1. If Google didn't display the link at all, there would be no people to not visit this link.
2. The newspapers themselves often put the most essential bit of information in the headline.
3. Google sends MILLIONS of visitors per month to the newspapers.Even if it was true that displaying some of the content would stop some people from following the link, the net gain for the newspapers is still enormous.

So... Chinese hackers hack into servers of US agencies to find out why US agencies hacked into Chinese servers to find out why Chinese hackers hacked into...

No, I don't see any problem with that.

The same happens when I buy on eBay or Amazon Marketplace.
Lot's of Chinese vendors there that ship from China.

Also, US vendors lie on the customs sticker as well, if they care to put that information on a package at all.
I live in Germany and I order from all around the world, Every time I need to go to the customs offices to pick up a package because it was not declared properly it's a package from the US or Australia.

Sure. But the question whether somebody is a 'customer' (actually a 'consumer', as the law is about 'Verbraucher') when using Google products or not is a matter of law. Personal opinions have not practical impact.

drinkypoo tries to argue semantics, when the only definition of 'customer' that is relevant here is the one that German law uses.

Well, since this is about a German court talking about German consumers and (I assume) addressing Google Germany, German law is pretty much all that matters.

Point is that that's not enough for Google to fulfill their legal obligation. They have to read the emails and (supposedly) react in some meaningful way.

If I look at the last 60 years I come to the conclusion that the US has become the new Germany.

And that's the point: German law says that you can not provide a service without a certain amount of support. Google HAS to be available to German customers via email.

How so?
'Hey, I'm sorry that you just got injured while being in my car, but could you please not mention that you booked me on Uber to anybody, like the police, because I'm not covered for this case?'

Yeah, right. That will work out just fine...

And once the rules have been adjusted Uber is free to do business according to those rules.
But TODAY they have to do business according to TODAYS rules. If they think the rules are outdated, they should work on changing them. But until then they have to follow them.

Do you really would want to do business with AT&T or Microsoft or GM without any laws in place that regulate the contracts?
Trust me: You don't. They have the power of a multi billion company and you have nothing.
They would dictate all the rules and you could agree or die.
And no, the free market wouldn't solve the problem: There would be no smaller competitors, because there would be no law that protects them from the big meanie.

The free market is an ideal that ignores reality.
We need government regulation because we are not on equal standing in regards to the companies we would like (or need, for want of alternatives) do business with.

If they don't follow the laws that other companies in this business have to follow -- of course it should extend that far.

The fact that Uber explicitly says that they are going to ignore this court decision speaks volumes.

These permits, insurances ect. are there to protect the customers of the taxi service.

If a Uber driver causes an accident, what will happen?
His private car insurance will not cover any damages he incurred while driving his car for profit, and it's very unlikely that he has the kind of money to pay damages for injuries out of his pocket.

'relevant tests', 'approriate insurance'

Sure every driver has that for the purpose of driving oneself or friends and relatives.
But once you want to drive people for profit you have to follow stricter rules, pass more tests and have more insurance.

Cab drivers have to do that, so why shouldn't Uber do the same?

The decision explicitely mentions the fact that Uber and the drivers are doing it for profit.
The Mitfahrzentralen work on a no profit basis, and the drivers don't make a profit either and would drive that way anyway.

This isn't about protectionism.
This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.
Sure, US companies are not used to do that, but that is a problem of the US, not of the other countries.

Germany has laws regulating persons and companies that want to be active in the transport business. These laws where not made to keep US companies out. The laws are a lot older than Uber. They are there to protect consumers and give them a certain amount of safety.
Ubers profits are not more important than everybodies safety.