Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results

Posted by samzenpus on from the beverly-by-any-other-name dept.

The Seventh Circuit Court has ruled that Beverly Stayart can't sue Yahoo! because she did not like what she saw on the results page after searching for her name. Stayart claimed that her "internet presence" was damaged by Yahoo! because results for a search of her name showed listings which included pharmaceuticals and adult oriented websites. The court disagreed. From the article: "Stayart had sued under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising, false implications of endorsement, and so on. Her problem was that a Lanham Act claim requires a showing that the plaintiff has a 'commercial interest' to protect, and Stayart did not have a commercial interest in her own name."

7 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?

    1. Re:But.... by Sylak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So could she but using a different part of the law.

    2. Re:But.... by zeropointburn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just curious, but isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening? If my name brought up a bunch of scams and raunchy porn in a web search, it is quite possible that a prospective employer would decide not to hire me because of it (in whole or in part). This could be an impact in decisions that directly affect my income.

      My guess is that the legal meaning of 'commercial' has little to do with the common meaning, thus leading to my irrelevant conjecture above.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  2. So what if she did? by KnownIssues · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect? Could the court have ruled that Yahoo! could be sued for search results in that case? How would you prove that it's not just someone with the same name? It's almost too bad she didn't have a commercial interest to protect, because it would be interesting to see what the ruling would have been in that case. And it would be even more interesting to see how Yahoo! could comply.

  3. What by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yahoo is just a search engine, as far as I know they don't have any responsibility for the websites that people find while using it (if they do, they shouldn't). Good thing she lost, because she's a fucking idiot.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  4. Anti-Streisend effect....? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

    Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

    --
    No sig today...
  5. She got what she wanted by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She may have lost in court, but if you search for "Beverly Stayart" now, the first result is actually her.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.