CPA Googles For His Name, Sues Google For Libel 619
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."
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Funniest thing about that search [google.com] --- underneath the GWB link is a Jimmy Carter link. Both are accompanied by a Google directory link.
Jimmy Carter is under
George W. Bush is under
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Put aside the joke and you have arguably one of the most powerful information tools in the history of internet (and the world?) being hijacked by it's own algorithms.
There have been numerous stories here and else ware lately about tricking Google. Things like this and those search engine Spam sites are seriously starting to skew the intent of a search engine (i.e., provide links to relevant pages)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what a search engine is supposed to do? I mean, if you search for a concept on the web, you should find what people believe is the relevant content for that term... it's not hijacking. It's simply reflecting the terms people use to refer to a particular page.
To say that Google needs to do something about this is silly. The algorithms are working as intended. If you disagree with the opinion of the people making the connection between the term and the page, well, take it up with the people making the links or make your own links to the "right" place.
Sujal
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh?
Check out this page [glennbeck.com] which is promoting bombing Michael Moore. I use this page as it is a nice antithesis to the Bush search. I don't care whom it refers to, just that it is wrong.
From the site:
Once you have signed up construct a simple website, fill it up with your shopping list, a log of what you had for lunch or whatever, it doesn't matter (or how about a nice Glenn Beck fan site, but please
When you update your website, which should be a couple of times a week, be sure to include the following HTML at some point:
These people are clearly Not providing content, but Are Tricking Google. And they(Google) Should do something about it.
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that Google's problem?
Well initially it's my problem: I type in what I'm looking for, I'm not getting the sites which would be suitable for the query (or I'm getting results which are buried under lots of other stuff). The result of that is Google's problem: I'm using other search engines - once enough people do that it decreases their ad revenue.
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hold on a second. The obvious anwer may be 'NO' but it is not the correct answer. One of the greatest things about Google (and the web) is that you can find opinions that don't usually get mainstream visibility.
If you want to know what the NYT or some other mainstream news provider thinks then restrict your search to their site.
If you are searching for X and get a bunch of links to 'Anti X' then spend some time and learn how to refine your search. (Not your complaint but mentioned above.)
I could see Google allowing you to build a profile of sites that you view as important/trustworthy (or building one for you as you surf) but to suggest that this profile is somehow appropriate for everyone is a more than a little self-centered. Maybe you could pick a canned profile and work from there.
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.
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's very nice but you still haven't identified what the Huge Growing Problem us or why it will be detrimental to anything. If a huge number of people do claim a relationship between the term "Miserable Failure" and Michael Moore (or George Bush, 1810c, Jesus Christ or even Ralph Yarro) then why shouldn't Google reflect that?
I can see concern about a single site being able to hijack search terms, that's a genuine problem imho, but if lots of people link a particular term with a particular subject, even if they do so consciously rather than subconsciously, then it seems entirely appropriate for it to show up in the search results.
Can you think of any harm that's been caused so far? If so then please give examples, or is it just that you envisage harm to come? If so then please give putative examples. I'd really like to understand your point.
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Offhand I would say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid fscking lawsuits. How about this - don't be an asshole and you'll have nothing to worry about to begin with - END OF LINE.
Re:Offhand I would say... (Score:4, Informative)
check out: http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html#What
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Informative)
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:In related news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
You jest, but here's ALL the info I can find! (Score:3, Interesting)
By reading this, you agree not to sue me and not to use this information unlawfully
Of course, *since* I found it via Google, it may well be the same "false and misleading" information. Hell, I don't even know if this is the right guy
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
I strongly disagree.
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
This begs the question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This begs the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
What triggered this post was "how much of it was true" -- Spytap is right. If true, Mark M. is up the creek w/o a lawsuit. If false, well thats not Google's problem.
Re:This begs the question... (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know, you can't sue anyone for simply lying. (Holocaust denial, for example?) Truth-in-advertising is close to that, though it does contain a sense of profit/interest in the matter. (Defamation being assumed to provide advantages to the person lying.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This begs the question... (Score:4, Informative)
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:This begs the question... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:This begs the question... (Score:5, Informative)
Any competent judge will throw this out right away, same as happened to that Search King dickwad.
Congratulations! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, while countless millions go on with their lives being perfectly able to make the distinction between "circular argument" and "leading question", you are there in the forefront making sure that an insignificant badly worded phrase coined centuries ago shall continue to wreak confusion for years to come! Well done! Carry on!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" real
Slashdot Men of Genius... (Score:5, Funny)
----- -----
Slashdot Men of Genius...
Today we salute you, mister "begs-the-question".
Mister begs-the-question!
While millions can understand a basic phrase, you take the lead in misinterpreting everything.
Cannot make a distinction!
Your lack of logic ensures that phrases coined centuries ago will continue to wreak confusion for years come.
A leader in confusion!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" really begs the question, do you really understand basic English?
This is the question I'm beggin'!
And gosh, did you know that I B.A'd in Logic? Fat lot of good that did me with guys like you around telling me how to speak.
Slashdot Men of Genius
----- -----
Re:Slashdot Men of Genius... (Score:5, Funny)
So here's to you, Mister Begs-the-Question, and here's to that Strunk & White you have jammed up your ass.
Re:This begs the question... (Score:3, Troll)
Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean no one will be able to sue me if I write destructive code in perl?
Re:Good idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ie, when searching for the two words:
"Bloater" "criminal"
a page that rightly proclaims:
"Bloater thinks that any murderer is a criminal"
can be summarised as "Bloater
If this is the case, then just as a the author of an anagram generator does not issue libelous statements, but the "user" does, it is in fact Mark Maughan himself that generated these alleged libelous statements by instructing a peice of search_and_summarise software to search and summarise by cutting out non matching text using some continuation marker such as "..." just as it normally does and he and everybody else expects it to.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, sometimes I wonder if it's always been like this. The internet I think is bringing things into the sunlight that are normally hidden in darkness....
Maybe this publicity is having a positive effect. Few of the grown-ups I know approve of childish behavior, so stories on people like this ought to show the public their true faces: adults acting like spoiled rotten kids.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more than childish. It's frivolous and should be criminal. I mean the guy is suing Yahoo and AOL for using Google? Maybe he could also sue thousands, if not millions, of websites that have a textbox with "google search" button next to it, or a link to Google's website too (because we all know that linking is illegal too)!
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, it should just be "loser pays winner amount of loser's costs". If I sue MS and lose, I pay a few hundred or whatever. If MS pays me and loses, I get lawyer fees for their entire legal department on top of my award.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me begin by saying that I agree with you that lawsuits are out of control.
But...
The sort of reform you suggest is not fair. We all know that guilty (or in this case liable) parties are found not liable, and not liable parties are found liable. It happens, especially in law where the running joke that "a jury is twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer" isn't that far from the truth.
An unintended consequence of this reform is to limit completely LEGITIMATE lawsuits and make big corporations essentially untouchable for the average Joe Citizen. We all know that the bigger the corporation or the richer the party, the more lawyers they have and the more expensive each one is. Even if somebody has a legitimate claim against the corporation, are they going to take the chance of having to pay $150,000 if a jury doesn't agree? How about a half million? They would be especially wary about doing so if the amount they're claiming is less than the amount that they were likely to lose if their case was rejected.
On the other side of the coin, it permits companies and rich people from continuing to run rampant over the judicial system by simply accepting the risks or for intimidation purposes--one of the main purposes of lawsuits today. Tort reform that only reforms the lower- and middle-classes... there just has to be something better.
On a completely DIFFERENT coin, even if your idea was otherwise flawless there would still be a problem: Namely, that some unbelievable percentage of cases never even reach court. So if that number is 85% (I can't find a figure right now), that means you're only having an effect on the remaining 15% of lawsuits anyway. It would be a start, but hardly a big impact.
Personally, I think the problem is attitude. When people stop believing that everybody owes them something, that if any mistake is ever made they should sue the pants off of somebody, the lawsuit problem will cease to exist. But that attitude plays on human nature's inherent greed, so I'm not sure it ever will.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so my plan isn't perfect. Can anyone suggest anything better?
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Funny)
Tactical thermonuclear device.
Re:Anger.... Rising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. The rule should be that the loser pays the winner's legal bills, but the loser need pay no more to the winner than they paid to their own lawyers.
That way you can control the amount you want to risk, and the maximum exposure is only twice what people risk now.
There are still some slight problems with this (e.g., suits where one of the participants acts at their own lawyer) but I think they're all fixable.
Oh the horror, oh the tragedy!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah it isn't like lawyers to do that is it?
Re:Oh the horror, oh the tragedy!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Let him sue Slashdot next (Score:5, Funny)
He also has poor math skills and failed basic algebra twice.
Re:Let him sue Slashdot next (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let him sue Slashdot next (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let him sue Slashdot next (Score:5, Funny)
Nice quote (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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. ;-)
I'm planning to sue the phone company (Score:5, Insightful)
Next thing he'll sue them for .... (Score:5, Funny)
He knows he's not going to win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tort reform, anyone?
Re:He knows he's not going to win. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, I sure wouldn't want to employ an obvious idiot with too much time on his hands to handle my accounting.
Re:He knows he's not going to win. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:He knows he's not going to win. (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
I requested, was charged for and I paid for an unlisted number. The phone company published my number anyway and I filed suit on them in small claims court. The phone company did not show up in court and I won a default judgement against them for $1,000.
They never paid me. And when I called them and demanded satisfaction, they began screwing me on my phone bills. My $29 a month phone bill suddenly exploded into $600 a month bills for bogus charges, bogus equipment, bogus repairs, bogus services and bogus installations. The more I complained the worse it got, when I refused to pay the bills they cut my phone off then charged me hundreds of dollars to reconnect it and HUGE deposits.
Fucking thieves SBC is.... I cut the wires at the pole and the house and rolled up the wire and kept it. I now use only a cell phone.
I will NEVER have a land line again.
BTW, I had previously had an unlisted number for over 15 years.
why go through the trouble? (Score:5, Insightful)
The next part is even more unbelievable. As big as SBC is, I highly doubt that some low level bill supervisor cares about your lawsuit and complaints enough to perform highly illegal actions (of which you have written, documented proof in your bill). Even more ludicrous is that a high level manager would care about something so petty as $1000 to fuck with you. Then, even if this did happen, why did you not take those bills to the Better Business Bureau or to small claims court again?
All of this sounds like urban legend... even the $1000. I would guess that a judge would fine them the amount you paid to have your phone unlisted, then ordered them to take your name out of the next version of the phone book.
Re:why go through the trouble? (Score:4, Interesting)
But you don't find it believable that people at SBC would alter your bill in retaliation?
I'm sure it happens more often than you'd think. While SBC makes it incredibly tough for employees to add new services to an existing line (upgrading your DSL to a faster speed, for example, requires approval of several levels of people), it's shockingly *easy* for 3rd. parties to add charges to a monthly phone bill.
Anyone can create a bogus "shell" company that claims to provide long distance services, and proceed to bill customers for usage. It's part of SBC's job to pass these 3rd. party telco charges along on your statement - and good luck getting them removed if they're incorrect!
I've known several people (and companies) that had this happen to them before. Sometimes, people even call pretending to be a well-known service like Sprint, when in reality, they're just a Sprint reseller who tacks a big profit margin onto Sprint's normal rates. Sure, they give you "Sprint" long distance, but not at Sprint's normal prices.
A dishonest employee could easily find some way to mess up your phone bill, without resorting to the difficult-to-implement method of upgrading the services you already pay for on your line. It only takes a few seconds to check-mark a few things in the computer and you might be paying a monthly "line maintenance fee" you never requested, or a change to your preferred long distance calling plan that costs you many $'s more than before.
Re:why go through the trouble? (Score:4, Insightful)
SBC, the corporation, didn't add crap to your bill to retaliate for your $1000 judgement. All those people whose "shoes you pissed on" each (probably one their own) threw a little something on your bill because you're a fucking prick. Did you really think any of those flunkies or their supervisors have anything to do with SBC's non-payment of a court judgement? Get a clue.
humm what about intent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:humm what about intent (Score:3, Insightful)
Libel requires intent only if the figure in question is a public figure.
I'm going to state the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I was going to say that if this guy gets any money our legal system will have gone kaput. This is like suing a library for providing books which contain recommendations against your products. It's also like suing me for giving you a book with the same information.
What a great example of shooting the messenger... how pathetically ridiculous.
Oh, and is this guy actually suing the parties responsible for the creation of the socalled 'defamatory content'? Probably not, seeing as how they are broke due to doing business with a poor accountant.
Re:I'm going to state the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like suing a library for saying "oh, That guy? There's a book about him on teir 5, row six that says he murdered a little girl", then when you get to teir 5 row six, the book about him says that he once got a speeding ticket and didn't pay, but the book next to it says that some other guy murdered a little girl.
If the library refused to stop giving out that nugget of information when you asked them too, would you not be pissed?
Actually, all of us here should be smart enough to understand the situation without ridiculous metaphors. Google's page summary is giving out misleading information about him, and they refuse to do anything about it. I don't think the onus should be on Google to prevent this, but I don't see why they can't act on complaints they do get.
No, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, there are so many people in the world with any given name there's no expectation that just giving google a name is enough to be sure you're going to be talking about the same person.
This is like looking in the card catalog for your name and then suing the library for libel.
Don't be so quick to knock ridiculous metaphors, you had a really ridiculous one and you didn't seem to understand what was going on at all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Whoopie (Score:5, Informative)
Bad logic (Score:4, Informative)
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.
It's only right... (Score:5, Funny)
Who really killed JFK, did Tammy really make out with Nick at the end of the high school prom, and whether UFO's, the Lock Ness Monster, bigfoot, black triangles and the chucacubra really exist or not. This could save so much effort and time wasted on speculation and controversy.
An interesting side-effect ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder if this will add strength to his case?
Can this CPA add 2 and 2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, here's what I was going to post... Can this CPA add up 2 and 2? If there is libelous information on the Internet, and he wishes to pursue litigation, then he should go after the persons responsible for the information. Google is only an index, making the information on the Internet easily available for access. Without Google (and perhaps without similar search engines), it would be all but impossible to find anything useful on the Internet.
In fact, I think the aforementioned CPA should THANK Google for making it possible for him to FIND the offending information, so that he can take action against whomever he should take action. Without Google, the alleged libel might have been posted all over the Internet and our friend the CPA would never have been any the wiser.
I further think there is no basis in law for suing an index for pointing to information. On the contrary, I think this was tested in court quite a few times (in all those trials against linking to pages within a site) and it was decided that you can link to whatever the heck you want to link to.
Therefore, I think this CPA is making a stupid decision, and I believe the case will get dismissed. I hope Google countersues for legal fees. And wins.
Oh yeah, and did I mention I'm a Supreme Court Justice? Yeah, the Supreme Court of Bullshit.
The offending link (Score:5, Informative)
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. . . .
Re:The offending link (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe this is what he didn't like... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Loser pays (Score:3, Insightful)
The mental midget known as Mark Maughan, who has only been a member of his local CPA association for about a year, is just out to get some easy cash by trying to make it more expensive for Google to fight him in court. CPAs normally make ass-loads of money, so I guess he must be really crappy at his job if he needs the money this badly.
Poor Mr. Maughan (Score:3, Funny)
While (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Loser Pays... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you as a lawyer don't believe that a case has merit, but the client wants to pursue the case, the lawyer can draw up a contract noting that the client has been advised that consuel believes the case does not have merit, and that they, the client, will bear the liability for all costs and penalties in the case.
The first thing that happens in a civil suit is that it is analyzed for merit, and if it found lacking, liability and fines are assessed.
Basically, it takes the profit motive for pursuing crappy cases out of the system. Why shouldn't lawyers pursue any case? Money is money.
And this still allows for anybody to pursue a case, but they have to assume the costs if the lawyer doesn't find any merit to the case.
Re:Loser Pays... (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, there is a trade-off between innovation in law and the loser-pays system. It's recognized that novel legal approaches are rarely taken in countries where the loser pays. It just makes sense that not only those with poor cases, but also those with good cases based on new interpretations or new law will be wary of bringing suit in such a system.
The U.S. is the only common law country without a loser-pays rule, but it is also recognized that such legal innovation, when eventually adopted in other common law countries, usually happens here first due to this issue.
Re:Loser Pays... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loser Pays... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it may be time for the US to seriously consider implementing a "Loser Pays" system in civil court. Basically, if you, as a lawyer, pursue what is found to be suit with insufficient legal merit, then you are liable for all the costs of the case, including the other sides fees, plus any penalty the court finds suitable.
IAAL, and you seem a little confused as to what a "Loser Pays" system is.
A "loser pays" system is one in which the losing litigant, not the lawyer for the litigant, pays the attorney's fees and court costs of the prevailing side. This is also known as "fee-shifting".
Such a system seems to have an intrinsic appeal to certain people, particularly to those who really don't understand how the U.S. legal system works.
The U.S. legal system is a combination of statutes and judge-made law. A large amount of U.S. law is judge-made, particularly in the area of tort, and new legal theories and new causes of action are an important part of the development of that kind of law.
Right now, U.S. citizens enjoy a liberal civil justice system in which any person may make a claim in good faith. The price for that system is that there are some who will abuse it.
A general "loser pays" approach would of course stifle that process of creating new law. It can be argued that is appropriate, since legislation should be the prerogative of legislatures. However, with more and more legislators coming from non-legal backgrounds, and the increasing nastiness and contentiousness of politics, statutes are becoming more complex and often require interpretation, which means that somebody, somewhere, has to make certain arguments about matters for which there isn't any precedent as of yet. Judge-made law is thus unavoidable, if only as a matter of interpretation.
So you see, a "loser pays" system creates a problem. We already have laws that allow recoveries against people who file meritless lawsuits or who prosecute an action in bad faith. But if the U.S. legal system had always employed a "loser pays" approach, many legal decisions that we now take for granted could never have happened; for instance, the NAACP would have been bankrupted by their many losses long before Brown v. Board of Education.
Now in reading the post I am responding to, I cannot help but think that the poster operates under the misconception that attorneys have some crystal ball that allows them to know whether a client has a meritorious case when the client comes in and hires the attorney, prior to the conduct of discovery or a hearing or anything else. You wouldn't want an attorney have to prejudge YOUR case, I assure you. An attorney is a hired expert, not a judge or jury. It is clients that drive litigation, not attorneys. The litigiousness of U.S. society is a direct result of both the increasing assumption of power by the judicial branch, which encourages the seeking of judicial rather than legislative or private solutions to social problems, and the expansion of legislation of all kinds that began in the mid-20th century, a result of a "progressive" mindset that sees legislation/State coercion as the solution to persistent human problems. More law makes more litigation, it's just that simple.
Yes, the fact that there are so many attorneys in the U.S. now, and that they are all hungry for work, means that litigants have far more access to our overburdened courts than they used to. But the reason that there are so many more attorneys is that the policy of the courts and state governments has been to increase competition in the legal services field in the public interest. There are more law schools than there once were. Various court decisions going back to the '60's prohibited minimum fee schedules, non-compete agreements, and other anti-competitive practices between lawyers.
I am not saying that there shouldn't be reform, but a universal "loser pays" system is a cure that is worse than the disease. Eliminating conti
Here's what he's actually referring to (Score:5, Informative)
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:Here's what he's actually referring to (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see why this guy would be peeved about the way his company is listed in Google, but shouldn't he just try to outrank that page with his own site? He needs to have some other sites link to his and increase its popularity so that it pushes that government site's listing down a bit.
Perhaps he could counter by having a page on his own site that explains why the Google listing is misleading. You know, tell his side of the story.
Agai
Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)
Think I'll sue Lucas for not paying me.
Err... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tough Luck (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Jokes on him... (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about bad things being said about him... He just gave everything credence by bringing up those ridiculous lawsuits. At the end of the day, he is going to look 10 times worse than the Google results alone could make him appear... Add to that, that it is going to be much more widely known?
I mean, honestly... Does this guy think that the slim chance of getting lots of cash out of these companies is really worth the REAL damage this is going to do to him and his company?
Lawyers that represent frivelous lawsuits are scummy... The People that hire the lawyers are scummier.
When google gives wrong info me (Score:5, Funny)
I gained a dance school and a few civil war books in my resume experiences.
Internet Libel Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Information perfectly accurate (Score:3, Informative)
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:
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.
I don't see it going anywhere (Score:4, Informative)
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.
You know... (Score:4, Funny)
Why the Libel not? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a riot to see hypocrisy and lawsuit abuse come head to head. What a wonderful standard the RIAA has set for us.
Re:Isn't page rank dead? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't page rank dead? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't page rank dead? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how about suing the site with the actual conten (Score:3, Informative)
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".