CPA Googles For His Name, Sues Google For Libel

fbform writes "Mark Maughan, an accountant, searched Google for his name on March 25 2003 and found some 'alarming, false, misleading and injurious' information about himself and his firm. Therefore, he is now suing Google, Yahoo (which used Google as its search engine at the time), AOL (for using Google to enhance its search results) and Time Warner (because they're the same company as AOL) for libel. Specifically, his lawyer John Girardi believes that Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context when displaying search results."

Re:Isn't page rank dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Google ditched the technology that helped get them famous. Right. [google.com]

Has Google Changed the Results?

[luigi22_]

I just googled the guy's name and got nothing that said that he had been "disciplined for gross negligence, for failing to timely submit a client's claim for refund of overpayment of taxes, and for practicing as a CPA without a permit".

Maybe they changed things in an effort to stop the lawsuit, which, btw, is one worthy of SCO-like fame.

humm what about intent

[Cyberglich]

Last i checked Libel required some form of intent since google's results are computer generrated by the web spiders where the intent do the spiders have it out for him?

Whoopie

[Tyrdium]

Looks like he didn't read Google's terms of service [google.com]...

Google disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the GOOGLE SERVICES results. Google disclaims any responsibility for the deletion, failure to store, misdelivery, or untimely delivery of any information or material. Google disclaims any responsibility for any harm resulting from downloading or accessing any information or material on the Internet through the GOOGLE SERVICES.

IANAL, but this seems to be saying that they are not liable for anything Google serves up. Given that, by doing this search and suing them for its results, he's violating its terms of service, I don't think he can do much... It's like the clause in a Microsoft EULA that says they aren't responsible for any damages related to or caused by their product.

Try adding "CPA" to the search

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like google represent the page quite correctly to me.

Re:Let him sue Slashdot next

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Maughan can't have an orgasm unless he kills a dog.

The offending link

[cybermancer]

I imagine this is the offending link to the California Diciplinary Actions List [ca.gov]. All the information he claims Google distorted is displayed in black on white on the page owned by ca.gov. Don't know how anyone else could be liable for that.

So in other words he is suing Google, et al. for pointing to publicly available records that are not flattering. The odd side effect is now that everyone will see this link and know all the sorted details about he and his law firm. Before he made this fuss no one would have cared. Maybe he will sue me too for posting this link. Hmm. . . .

Maybe this is what he didn't like...

[Jeff Reed]

This [ca.gov] page seems to list some disciplinary action taken against his law firm. I quote from the "Cause for Discipline" column (all emphasis mine):

For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.

Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.

Sounds like someone knew they'd have no luck taking on the state and decided to try and get some quick cash out a Google. Nice try.

While

[jeffkjo1]

While I think this is a bogus lawsuit, I have a fairly good guess as to what he is refering to.

In google search results, the brief clip of information below the link is often snippets of 3 or 4 different sentences (to show you that all of your requested words did in fact show up."

I'm going to hazard a guess that Mr. Maughan's result looked something like "Mark... Maughan... And Associates have... not paid their taxes... practice without a license... eat babies."

If that's what this is about... hes god a point...

Here's what he's actually referring to

[Cyph]

When you search google for his company name [google.com], the first hit it comes up with shows the following for the description:

Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz ... Surrender of license accepted. Effective July 1, 1993. BROWN & MAUGHAN,
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529). MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184) ...

The reason he is suing is because "Surrender of license accepted." is shown in the description, while it actually is carried over from a section on the page which doesn't refer to his company. Though if you view the page you'll see that the company is actually on probation for 3 years. The site linked to is actually http://www.dca.ca.gov. Now, apparently, this guy thinks that if Google sampled some of the results on the page, and accidentally showed that, Google is somehow responsible for libel.

Personally, I think he's insane, but I can see his position on this because it does look misleading. I just hope he doesn't win anything.

Re:Let him sue Slashdot next

[cybermancer]

Yeah, I was thinking of that Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] reference too.

Bad logic

[Mistlefoot]

That's plain bad logic.

If I offer you child porn with a disclaimer, no matter what's in the disclaimer, traffiking in the child porn would still be illegal.

There are many instances where you cannot be forced to abandon your rights by signing a contract saying that you do. And this Google search happens whether or not the 'complaintent' searched or not. He's concerned about other people doing this.

I've no idea who's right here, but your logic fails badly.

Re:The offending link

[Phosphor3k]

Maybe he's suing because of the summary of the page:

Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz ... Effective July 1, 1993. BROWN & MAUGHAN, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529). MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184) Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA. ...

Re:In related news...

[jhunsake]

Actually this search does turn up that he was in trouble before with the state: Mark+Maughan+cpa [google.com].

Tough Luck

[tiny69]

http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm [ca.gov]

For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.

Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.

He broke the law by practicing with an expired license, failed to pay fines, and is now now suing search engines because the information was posted on the internet by the state of California. That's his own damn fault. People need to learn to live with the consequences and take responsibility for their actions.

Re:how about suing the site with the actual conten

[fbform]

Here's the offending page [ca.gov].

It's the Disciplinary Actions page in the California Board of Accountancy section on the California Dept of Consumer Affairs's website.

Note that Google itself does not list [google.com] any specific disciplinary actions, except for the rather damning page title of "Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz".

Re:how about suing the site with the actual conten

[no longer myself]

I think this was link to the unfavorable text he found... here [ca.gov]

Google is your friend.

Internet Libel Standards

[fiumisporchi]

It doesn't seem like he will have much success if Bloggers [wired.com] can't be sued for libel. Note this paragraph:

The court based its decision on a section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, or the CDA. That section states, "... no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Three cases since then -- Zeran v. AOL, Gentry v. eBay and Schneider v. Amazon -- have granted immunity to commercial online service providers.

Point, set, match, google.

Re:This begs the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sue for Libel, or slander if the information is TRUE. This Mark fellow will lose big and fast and hard and deservingly.

That depends upon the jurisdiction. Liberace (sp?) won a couple of lawsuits where he claimed he was defamed (a component of both libel, and slander), when newspapers stated that he was a homosexual. Something that was demontrably true.

A more pertinant question is why isn't he suing the owner of the webpage(s) in question? Other than the fact that they don't have deep pockets that is.

Information perfectly accurate

[Galvatron]

I'm not sure about all of the charges, but the California Board of Accountancy does list the disciplinary action for practicing with an expired license [ca.gov]. This is the first Google result for "Mark Maughan CPA" (without quotes). So as far as I can tell, the information DOES appear on the state board site, contraditing the article.

At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen results before where it takes search terms from different parts of the page, and gives a misleading summary:
...blah blah blah blah blah blah Mike...
...Maughan punished for gross negligence...

Even though the linked article might be talking about Mike Smith and Fred Maughan. I can see how something like that could be damaging to someone's reputation, and Google might want to change the way it presents summaries. But since the "offending information" actually does appear on the Board website, I'm not sure how Google is supposed to be responsible.

Re:This begs the question...

[the gnat]

Joking aside, the information he's unhappy about being listed for him included a .ca.gov site (which lists disciplinary proceedings). So it's already a matter of public record. I think he's suing because this is the first hit, which he claims is misleading. Well, it's in a public database - I actually think Google is doing us a service.

Any competent judge will throw this out right away, same as happened to that Search King dickwad.

Re:In related news...

[KrispyKringle]

``For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.

Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.''

I'd be tempted to point out that if he admits the claims are true, it wouldn't be libel. I know he claims that it's taken out of context, but I'm reasonably sure that context is unimportant; assuming a party has full rights to reproduce in part or in whole the information (which in this case Google does, since Mr. Maughan doesn't own the information being presented), I see no legal issues with reproducing it only in part. I thought that if it were factual, it would not be libel, regardless of context. Not positive, though.

Either way, he clearly hopes for a quick settlement (though I don't think that will happen; precedence on this would just really hurt Google, so they're bound to fight it). No way this is going to help his reputation, after all.

Re:In related news...

[fiddlesticks]

it's *exceedingly unlikely* that the Mark Maughan who's currently top of the google search is the same guy - a (US-based?) 'South Bay accountant' - who's suing google

The top link returned atm takes you here (http://www.polo-gt.co.uk/mk4/mmaughan.htm [polo-gt.co.uk] - a UK site about VW Polo cars

The UK Mark Maughan has a Mk 4 Polo, fyi.

He's probably not a 'litigious schmuck'

Re:This begs the question...

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

DO NOT MISUSE the phrase "begs the question"!

Please, for the love of (insert thing loved), just write "demands to be asked" or "prompts the question" if that's what you mean.

If you use "beg the question", PLEASE mean:

1 : to assume as true or take for granted the thing that is the subject of the argument;
2 : to dodge the issue.

Re:Anger.... Rising...

[k_head]

There really is no need to do anything special. The judges already have the discretion to throw our frivolous suits. They don't and that's the problem. The solution is to somehow kick the judges in the ass so they will use their discretionary powers.

How about this. If a review panel finds that the lawsuit was frivolous the judge who didn't throw it out has to pay the fees for both lawyers.

I don't see it going anywhere

[UnknowingFool]

IANAL but isn't there many precedents where courts have ruled against him. For example, the Supreme Court:
New York Times Co vs Sullivan [findlaw.com]

In this case, it is well known that Google is a search engine that finds information on somebody else's website.

Re:In related news...

[red floyd]

For those of you who aren't in Los Angeles... The "South Bay" is the southern part of Los Angeles: The Redondo Beach/San Pedro/Long Beach area.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This begs the question...

[Martin Blank]

California Civil Code covers libel thusly:

44. Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander.

45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a of this code.

[snip]

48a (b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel, and no other[.]

There's some other information in that section which requires more ability to read legalese than I possess, but it does not seem that he has much of a case, because the presentation of this information is in the context of a privileged communication, which is defined in Section 47 (and is too long to reproduce here) but basically protects that published under legal requirements or as part of official records or proceedings, which this is. Google is no more at fault here than would be the clerk recorder of his county for presenting the information to someone asking about him.

The result in question

[bl968]

From http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm

BROWN & MAUGHAN,
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529)

MAUGHAN, MARK G.
(CPA 38184)
Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA

Revocation stayed with three years' probation and a 30-day suspension, via stipulation settlement.

Probation terms include:

30-day suspension from the practice of public accountancy.

Renewal of the CPA and corporate licenses, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this order.

Compliance with the citation order which contained administrative fines totaling $1,500.00 and an order of correction and abatement. Payment of $1,500.00 is due within 30 days of the effective date of this order.

Reimbursement of $4,360.17 to the Board for investigative and prosecution costs.

Submission of a sample set of financial statements, representing the highest level of service rendered, between August 1, 1995, and July 31. 1997.

Completion of a Board-approved ethics examination with a score of 90 percent or grater, within the first year of probation.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective December 27, 2000
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, 5050, 5100 (f) and 5154; California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, 89.1.

Nice quote

[macdaddy]

"...killed [sic] a man in Reno just to watch him die

I have to ask, do you actually know where that quote came from? For those of you that don't know your music, allow me to give you the low-down on those lyrics [leoslyrics.com]. Also, your quote is slightly flawed. It's actually:

"But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,"

That's a quote from one of the great country western songs, "Folsom Prison Blues", written and sung by the late Johnny Cash [johnnycash.com], better known as The Man in Black. That song is now one of the staples of country music, hell music in general. For those of you that aren't familar with Cash's music I encourage you to pick up one of his greatest hits albums. The Essential Johnny Cash [amazon.com] is a good place to start. I thought I'd make that slightly OT point. Who knows, maybe it'll educate one of you tenderfoots. ;-)

Re:Let him sue Slashdot next

[Mark Maughan]

Well I had sex with your wife!

Re:This begs the question...

[general_re]

I would think that it wouldn't be slander/libel if the person providing the "information" believed it to be true, or did not know it to be false.

You can get burned for slander or libel even if you believe what you are saying is true, if you reasonably should have known it was false. If I (falsely) state that you are currently on parole for child molestation, the fact that I really honestly believe that to be true is not going to save me, not when I could have easily refuted it with some minimal effort at verification.

In other words, if you can verify the truthfulness or falsity of what you're saying by expending a bit of reasonable effort, you'll be expected to have done so when your court date rolls around - the law will not allow you to get by with saying defamatory things that you have no reasonable right to believe.

Re:In other news

[pair-a-noyd]

Like I said, it happened. You can believe it or not but don't call me a liar. Your credibilty is shit anyway since you post AC...

Re:In related news...

[BlueCup]

They more or less created it. One of the factors that goes into Googles ability to search are the words inbetween the link tags. Get enough people to link to sco with the word bastards as the description, and that word will pull up the site.

It's called...

[harmonica]

...Google bombing [microcontentnews.com].

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea behind page rank is that the links determine the significance of the site. If the current implementation of page rank is being abused then I'm sure Google will make attempts to change the implementation to prevent the abuse. Whether or not they succeed is anyone's guess.

No, actually, it's Peter Norvig's [norvig.com] guess. He's the Director of Search Quality for Google, and staying one step ahead of the link farms and Google bombers is what he and his team do for a living.

Re:Offhand I would say...

[Facekhan]

Libel cases almost cannot be won in the United States. The burden of proof is extremely high.

check out: http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html#What% 20is%20Libel?

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In general, in most jurisdictions private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

A defamation claim will likely fail if any of these elements are not met.

While on many of these issues the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the primary defenses to a defamation claim are that the statements are true, are not statements of fact, or are privileged. Some defamatory statements may be protected by privilege, meaning that in certain circumstances the interest in communicating a statement outweighs the interest in protecting reputation. For example, most, if not all, jurisdictions recognize a privilege for fair reports of government and judicial proceedings, and for reports of misconduct to the proper authorities or to those who share a common interest (such as within a family or an association). Privileges do vary somewhat from state to state in their scope and requirements. They often apply to non-media defendants to the same degree as to media defendants.

Re: Libel

[mysidia]

Legal Definition of 'Libel' [lectlaw.com]
Libel Law in the United States [state.gov]:

Libel is a legal term that describes a written form of defamation, which the dictionary defines as a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation." Sometimes the word slander is used in the same breath as libel. ...

For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.

Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false. ...

in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

... just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

... The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.

...

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

...

... the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.

... ...

In other cases, principles have all but disappeared under an avalanche of legal tactics that sometimes turn libel trials into expensive battles that leave no clear winners.

Re:In related news...

[The Snowman]

What is a google bomb?

Link to a URL with a specific bit of text between the "a" tags. If enough people do this, search engines such as Google equate the text and URL, so a search for the text brings up the link.

(regarding your logs, maybe you are loggin to much! :)

I do not log too much. Apache writes the web server logs, not me.

I was trying to say that despite having nothing useful on my site, I get a ton of hits, and a whole bunch of those are bots and spiders.