Presumably because others could now sue Google for the same reasons, and they would be even more likely to win given the Getty result.

This. Otherwise known as "legal precedent".

Settlements don't establish precedent.

Ah, good point, it was a settlement...

Because then every other company would file similar suite and Google would have to deal with all of them.

Do you think every image company would want to be removed from Google Search results instead of building their services without the ability to scrape the big resolution images? How would users get on their websites?

It doesn't matter. Once one company wins in court, it sets a precedent. It attracts more companies to follow the same path as they'll think they have a better shot at winning. Google obviously wouldn't risk this.

But the question is what would they be winning? Fewer users because they are now off the search-grid.

Why would they want that?

> what would they be winning?

Money from a successful lawsuit?

Believe it or not there are people who just enjoy suing corporations or governments.

Lawyers are not cheap and frankly Google would lose every case because they are in the wrong.

Why are they in the wrong (on this issue)?

It was a settlement, there is no precedent.

Users don't go to the websites at all if the images are scraped by Google.

Because Getty wasn't suing to stop Google from sharing Getty images in image search. They were suing because they felt coerced into participating in image search. Forcing Getty not to participate would have been even worse for Getty.

Google should have just delisted Getty images from all of their search.

Then Google would have been sued for monopoly abuse, in Europe at least.

Even if it was with Getty's blessing?