A giant internet corporation has said self-regulatory traditions rule the online world. David John Collins, vice-president of global communications for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Google, told the Leveson Inquiry self-regulation was important, but could be aided by a legal backstop. He added: "There is already a body of regulation...particularly in areas around data. [But] self-regulation doesn't cover everything."Collins and Google's legal director Daphne Keller appeared jointly before the inquiry. Collins said Google took privacy very seriously and provided users with transparency, choice and control over sharing data. Keller said the company worked in accordance with UK law, despite the website servers being in America, and took extensive advice from lawyers in Britain.Collins said: "For removing results from our search index, it’s much better for those users if those judgments have been made by a court or a legal process."Google is not the internet. We’re also not the only entry point to the internet. Whatever robust system you recommend will have to cover those multiple entry points."Keller told the inquiry that the company had no editorial control over third-party website, and merely reflected the internet content in its search results. She was asked about Max Mosley's privacy case against News of the World, and said he had done the right thing in approaching individual websites to have invasive material removed. She added: "I can tell you that in his case we have removed hundreds of URLs [webpage addresses]...but taking it out of our search results doesn't make it disappear."Collins said: "It's much better for users if judgments are essentially made by a court or legal process that has weighed all of the evidence."Keller told the inquiry that over 30 per cent of removal requests were from businesses trying to take down lawful material from competitors' websites. She said 65 UK content removal requests made between January and June last year had an 82 per cent compliance rate. Keller said any future media regulator could give publishers the opportunity to defend remove claims and told Lord Justice Leveson the company would continue to "comply with what UK law requires". The chairman said regulation may be inquisitorial rather than adversarial.He added: "It's a question of how best to achieve a result when a complainant might not have the benefit of legal representation, and therefore there's a mismatch of power." He asked the pair about the potential to filter search results, so jurors are unable to access certain information about criminal cases. Keller said: "There is not a technical way through...the legal obligation is with the jurors not to search out information."Collins added: "The inevitable result would be over-filtering to the detriment of webmasters, a small business or a small newspaper. "There's been all kinds of news coverage about this very inquiry, and other coverage, that is legitimate and that you wouldn't want to disappear from search results."He said Google "absolutely" did not accept payment from news organisations to promote their content in search results. He added: "We don't say, 'we don't like this particular newspaper this week' or someone sits in an office and says, 'let's just take those people out'. That's not how it works."