Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed

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.

Comments

Go to your room!

[Seumas]

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.

Re:Go to your room!

[neonmonk]

Maybe Google will give them something to cry about.

Re:Go to your room!

[Fordiman]

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'.

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck. Can I sue them for removing search results?

Something in the water

[Umuri]

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:Something in the water

[Seumas]

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

Re:Wait, maybe I missed something

[nacturation]

No kidding. Search KinderStart for "shit" and it comes up with four results. And none of those actually have anything to do with shit! How skewed is that?

Re:Not far enough

[iminplaya]

It would put an end to the other type of suit that Google continually faces.

And it would put a bunch of lawyers out of work. What are you? Some kind of commie?

Re:A Good Start

[srussia]

Sorry, Good Start (TM) is already taken. That's what you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.

Why have Google ads then?

[Electrik Kool Aid]

Is it just me or does having Google ads on your site http://kinderstart.com/ while suing them just reek of bi-polar disorder?

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

Re:Not far enough

[BruceCage]

Why doesn't Google just sue itself and set precedent?

This is funny stuff

[tkrotchko]

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".

Baseless claims and no adequate investigation

[Udo Schmitz]

Hey, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, did you hear that? It's the sound of the Nazgûl sharpening their swords.

Re:Not far enough (totally OT)

[geobeck]

...there wasn't really a possibility of creating any new precedent or caselaw.

Maybe it's just early in the morning, but I read that phrase as "creating any new precedent or coleslaw."

Then I thought WTF? You mean the judge wanted to make salad out of KinderStart? Why not just give them their just desserts?