Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed

Posted by kdawson on Sun Mar 25, 2007 02:56 AM
from the and-a-pony dept.
Government The Courts Businesses Google The Internet News
Weather Storm writes in with news from PCWorld that a US District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Google by a company that accused them of manipulating search results for political and religious reasons and skewing results in favor of companies that compensate Google financially. The lawsuit (discussed on Slashdot last year) was filed by KinderStart, a parenting information Web site that claims it was illegally blocked from Google search results. The judge not only dismissed the lawsuit but granted a motion by Google to sanction KinderStart and one of its lawyers. Google can now seek "reasonable compensation" for attorney fees because KinderStart's lawyer filed claims that were factually baseless and did not perform an adequate investigation before filing the lawsuit.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Suing Google Over Pagerank 427 comments
Yardboy wrote in to tell us about a story from Reuters describing a lawsuit by parental advice company Kinderstart.com against Google for 'charging it unfairly deprived the company of customers by downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning.' Kinderssart claims Google is responsible for 'a "cataclysmic" 70 percent fall in its audience -- and a resulting 80 percent decline in revenue.' I guess the courts will now decide: Can google taketh what they giveth?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Go to your room! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Seumas (6865) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:03AM (#18476649)

    The lawsuit was filed by KinderStart, a parenting information Web site that claims it was illegally blocked from Google search results.
    So the judge ruled in Google's favor and decided they could seek damages against KinderStart . . . for acting like a bunch of babies.
    • Maybe Google will give them something to cry about.
    • All I got to say about this is 'neener, neener', and 'Ok, now, US civil justice system: do the same bit of good against Viacom'.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I like how their search engine uses google adsense...

  • Not far enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xigxag (167441) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:16AM (#18476707)
    So KinderStart's case was dismissed because they didn't have any evidence? All well and good, but I would've preferred a ruling that said even if they could substantiate their claims, that they were not entitled to any damages.

    I mean, so what if Google skews their search results? They aren't under any obligation to link to the whole web or to do so in an objective manner.

    • Re:Not far enough (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot.kadin@noSpaM.xoxy.net> on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:42AM (#18476797) Homepage Journal
      Actually the judge's ruling went about as far as the judge was in a position to go.

      Kinderstart didn't have any claims that had merit, so there wasn't really a possibility of creating any new precedent or caselaw. They judge just tossed the whole thing out, and then as a bonus, said they were so ridiculously bad, that Kinderstart should have known not to bring such a steaming pile into the courtroom, in the first place.

      In order to 'go any further,' Kinderstart would have needed to have a claim with a modicum of merit, which they didn't.

      I guess maybe you can hope that someone smarter will sue Google for the same thing tomorrow, but I think they're probably just happy for the moment.

  • Imagine if NewsMedia Had To Do This! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SRA8 (859587) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:23AM (#18476735)
    Skewing coverage and results? Imagine if the US News Media had to abide by such rules -- we wouldnt have 24hr coverage of the latest girl being kidnapped. Perhaps we could actually get news on world events, aside from that "World in 30 seconds" segment.

    • Re:Imagine if NewsMedia Had To Do This! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865) on Sunday March 25 2007, @04:03AM (#18476855)
      Sure we'd have 24 hour coverage of girls being kidnapped. They'd just have to show other girls who aren't blond haired, blue eyed, attractive and from affluent families.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shatrat (855151)
      It would be more likely the opposite. We would have 24 hour coverage of Britney Spears' breakdowns and freak potatoes shaped like Elvis' head because nobody would want to air anything influential and possibly get in legal trouble.
      The media is inane enough, it doesn't need more help from people who 'know what is good for us'.
  • I'd like to see the same thing happen to the RIAA next.
    • Sorry, Good Start (TM) is already taken. That's what you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.

  • Wait, maybe I missed something (Score:5, Informative)

    by malkir (1031750) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:29AM (#18476753)
    I RTFA'd, and checking out KinderStart.com I noticed that KinderStart is just a search engine *for kids*, meaning that they remove things that they believe are not 'ok' for children to see...
    ...and their bitching about Google skewing their search results?

  • Haha (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:38AM (#18476777)
    Fuck. [kinderstart.com] Can I sue them for removing search results?

  • Something in the water (Score:5, Funny)

    by Umuri (897961) on Sunday March 25 2007, @04:04AM (#18476857)
    Judges are starting to make sense and get onto companies for being legal morons.... Where are they comming from and what are they putting in the water in that city?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Seumas (6865)
      Bill O'Reilly would call this judge a secularist-progressive activist legislator and demand his removal from the bench. Or something.

  • I never understood (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Sunday March 25 2007, @04:05AM (#18476867) Homepage
    Why people feel that Google is obligated to do anything with their search results. They have the right to censor their search results however they like - their search results do not affect the existence of actual websites.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cbhacking (979169)
      While Google certainly has the right to control their own results, they have a moral obligation not to abuse this power. Too many people - both web searchers and site owners - depend on it.

      Not to say that I agree with Kinderstart.com's reasoning, but they do have one: Google has become, in effect, the world's online navigation system. Being de-listed from Google (or even demoted; who wades through more than the first few pages of results unless they are looking for something specific?) is the WWW equivalent

  • Why have Google ads then? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Electrik Kool Aid (1065730) on Sunday March 25 2007, @06:28AM (#18477263)
    Is it just me or does having Google ads on your site http://kinderstart.com/ [kinderstart.com] while suing them just reek of bi-polar disorder?

    I thought the Reality Distortion Field only applied to Apple...

  • This is funny stuff (Score:4, Funny)

    by tkrotchko (124118) * on Sunday March 25 2007, @06:48AM (#18477339) Homepage
    The last line in the article:

          "All options are being explored. That's all that we are going to say at this point," Yu told news agency Reuters.

    I imagine those options probably include "running away" and "hope to god they don't sue us".
  • Hey, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, did you hear that? It's the sound of the Nazgûl sharpening their swords.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.