While these disclaimers are nothing new -- companies are required to notify investors of potential threats to business practices and cash flow -- Google notes it is facing lawsuits related to trademarked terms in search results and the typosquatting lawsuits noted above.

Companies have filed trademark infringement and related claims against us over the display of ads in response to user queries that include trademark terms. The outcomes of these lawsuits have differed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Courts in France have held us liable for allowing advertisers to select certain trademarked terms as keywords. We are appealing those decisions. We were also subject to two lawsuits in Germany on similar matters where the courts held that we are not liable for the actions of our advertisers prior to notification of trademark rights. We are litigating, or have recently litigated similar issues in other cases, in the U.S., Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Israel and Italy.

[...]

Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of the matters discussed above will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Since Google made $1.25 billion in profit the first two quarters of this year, I suspect Google is right: losing the ad revenue on questionable trademarks won't make or break them. But this begs the question, why accept the ads at all?