You guys are all right and wrong at the same time. The article both blames and exonerates Google. Depending on what quotes you pick you can support a case for either. The people who are saying it shouldn't blame Google are right, Google is just complying with the law. That the article is inconsistent with where it's laying the blame, is the fault of sloppy journalism.

"Reluctant" is an odd choice of words though. It suggests Google had some possible option to refuse.

"Unwilling" or "legally obligated" might describe it better.

It's hard not to see this phrasing as an attempt to spread some culpability on to Google.

This is what the grandparent is missing. Google is doing this because it exhausted all options of appeal and was forced to do this by law. I have no doubt that Google doesn't like being told what it can or cannot show in its search results.

Reluctant seems perfectly cromulent here. Pretty much any definition includes 'unwilling', and the word itself in its original form contains the image of struggling against something.

In some ways it's more appropriate than your options, because it implies that Google is fighting the implementation of the law as far as it can.