Web site had sued the search giant after it fell to a "zero" ranking in the Google index.
Google is trying to convince a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the heart of the company’s business: its methods for indexing and ranking Web pages.
A California judge has dismissed a Web site’s lawsuit against Google over its fall in the Google search index, but left the door open for the lawsuit to be amended and re-filed.
Charges
In March, Google was sued by KinderStart.com, which alleges it suffered crippling financial harm after its Web site got dropped from the search engine’s index. The lawsuit claimed that by lowering KinderStart’s site in its PageRank system, Google had engaged in "pervasive monopolistic practices" that led to the denial of the site’s free speech rights, prevention and destruction of competition, and predatory pricing, among nine counts total.
KinderStart.com is charging Google, among other things, engaging in unfair practices and competition; committing defamation and libel; and violating the Federal Communications Act. The Web publisher seeks a class action certification for the lawsuit, damages and injunctive relief, among other things.
The case reflects the enormous impact of search engines on the business world at large. It has become crucial for many businesses to rank well in search engine results. An entire industry has sprouted to serve this "search engine optimization" need.
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose said in a ruling he would grant Google’s motion to dismiss Kinderstart’s complaint, but gave Kinderstart leave to amend and resubmit its case.
“The court concludes that Kinderstart has failed to allege any conduct on the part of Google that significantly threatens or harms competition,” Fogel wrote in a 23-page decision.
Kinderstart filed suit in March after Google altered the way it ranked sites in its Web search and advertising system.
As a result of the drop in ranking, traffic and monthly page views to KinderStart’s Web site fell 70 percent or more and the company’s revenue from advertisements through Google’s AdSense syndication program fell by more than 80 percent, according to the lawsuit.
Google’s senior litigation counsel, Michael Kwun, said in a statement: "We are pleased that Judge Fogel dismissed all of KinderStart’s claims."
Meanwhile, KinderStart attorney Gregory Yu also claimed victory, noting that the judge left the door open by allowing KinderStart to re-file the claims. He said he plans to file an amended complaint before the next court date, which is scheduled for Sept. 29.
Yu also said he was encouraged by the judge’s discussion pertaining to the defamation claim, and he urged other Web site publishers to contact him at Glawinfo.com to join the lawsuit, which seeks class action status.
"The decision suggests that, if properly alleged, Google may be defaming a whole class of Web sites sacked with a ‘0’ PageRank," he wrote in a statement. If plaintiffs show Google manually tampered with even a single Web site’s PageRank, Google’s entire claim of “objectivity” of search results and rankings could collapse.
In motions filed in May, Google argues that Judge Fogel, should dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the case boils down to one essential question: Should search engines or should courts determine Web sites’ relevancy? "If KinderStart were right… neither Google nor any other search engine could operate, as it would constantly face lawsuits from businesses seeking more favorable positioning," Google’s motion reads.
Eric Goldman, an assistant professor of law at Marquette University Law School, said the ruling was favorable for Google, except for the discussion on defamation.
Google also asks the judge to strike three of the suit’s counts, alleging they violate Google’s exercise of free speech in connection with a public issue. This is prohibited under a California law called the Anti-SLAPP statute, Google argues.
Devastating Effects
As the world’s most popular search engine, Google wields the strongest influence. Having a Web site that ranks low or disappears altogether from the Google index can have devastating effects for a company. This is what KinderStart.com alleges happened to it.
“It is a very important case for many reasons. Everyone uses search engines, so the question is: Are you seeing true and faithful results?” said Yu, KinderStart.com’s attorney.
Google considers how it calculates the relevance of Web sites to specific consumer searches to be a closely guarded secret critical to its ability to ward off manipulation of search results by advertisers it deems abusers of its system.
A 2003 ruling in a case filed by Oklahoma City-based Search King Inc. had sided with Google’s assertion that the ability to tweak its search results system was a form of opinion protected by free-speech rights.
KinderStart.com, based in Norwalk, California, began publishing a Web site for parents of children under 7 years old in May 2000 and in 2003 the site joined Google’s AdSense ad network, according to the complaint. Yet, starting in March and April 2005, the Web site suffered a "cataclysmic" fall in traffic of about 70 percent and a drop in AdSense revenue of about 80 percent, from which it has not recovered, and which the company blames on its removal from the Google index.
KinderStart.com claims it has never been notified by phone, mail or in person of the reason for its Web site’s exclusion. Google states in its Web site that it reserves the right to remove Web sites from its index for various reasons. KinderStart.com states it has not knowingly violated any of Google’s webmaster guidelines.
In February, Google decided to remove the German Web site of car maker BMW for allegedly trying to deceive its search robot to gain higher placement. Days later Google reincorporated the site to its index, saying BMW had undone the offending changes, although BMW never admitted any wrongdoing.
A Google spokesman was not immediately available to comment on Judge Foley’s ruling.