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."

42 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 SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let the Streisand Effect begin. :S

    3. Re:But.... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Perhaps they could, but hopefully it would depend on whether Yahoo itself was engaging in such practices, for otherwise it should be granted immunity (that is, it shouldn't be held responsible for what third-party websites do simply because they appear in Yahoo's search results). In any case, I don't think the court was implying the woman would have a valid case if not for her lack of commercial interest. Why bother exploring other issues when you've determined the plaintiff has no standing?

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    4. Re:But.... by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely the judge is just using the most open-and-shut logic applicable in order to put this to bed at minimal cost to all involved. My gut reaction was that this was a Bad Thing, as it left the door open for other litigious behaviors; but when I thought about it, that's the right thing for the court to do: address the case at hand, narrowly.

      Probably we could have a grand old time arguing about who's responsible for keyword associations, and who owns what, and on and on... but when the law in question can be quickly shown as inapplicable by examining a single fact, what's the point letting her dump money into an effort that forces Yahoo and the taxpayers to spend additional money as well?

      If she's really committed to wasting resources, perhaps she'll have her lawyer come up with another theory with which to bring a suit that cannot be so quickly set aside; if so, I guess the fun will start anew.

    5. 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. Be Honest by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many of you just went to google images and turned safe search off and searched for this womans name?

    I think the answer will illustrate just how bad an idea this was for her.

    1. Re:Be Honest by satuon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think her complaint is with Yahoo.

    2. Re:Be Honest by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you RTFA(I know, I know) she sued both Yahoo and Google, but they haven't tossed the google case out of court yet.

  3. Thought EVERY search came up with pharm/adult site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turns out it was just me. How did they know I like drugs and sex?

  4. Beverly Stayart free porn by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

    1. Re:Beverly Stayart free porn by 2phar · · Score: 2, Funny

      She's unleashed a monster. Note the text following the photo at http://eaglehealthcare.blog-generation.com/2010/02/06/viagra-cialis-levitra/

  5. 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.

    1. Re:So what if she did? by ktappe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect?

      I don't understand how she could NOT have a commercial interest to protect. Each of us is an employable worker, which is a business contract for both employer and employee. If her ability to become employed is damaged by Yahoo search results on her name (and we should all assume prospective employers are Googling/Yahooing the names of applicants), then that budding business contract could be materially damaged.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:So what if she did? by catbutt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe, but this case didn't get that far. It didn't say anything on whether the case would have merit if things were different, it just pointed out the first reason why this one can't go further.

    3. Re:So what if she did? by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in her case, she should be glad her search results are polluted with links that are obviously unrelated to her. It will cause any potential employer who might search her name to question the legitimacy of anything he finds.

    4. Re:So what if she did? by Loadmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is. To maintain an action under the Lanham Act you must meet the definition of a "commercial interest" as used/implied by the Act. The court tells you what that means in the opinion.

      Stayart’s argument hinges on the claim that by virtue
      of her extensive activities, her name has commercial
      value. These include: humanitarian efforts on behalf of
      baby seals, wolves and wild horses; what she describes
      as “scholarly posts” on a website; two poems that
      appear on a Danish website; and genealogy research.
      To determine whether a person or entity has standing
      under 43(a), we look at whether they have “a reasonable
      interest to protect” in a commercial activity. Dovenmuehle,
      871 F.2d at 700; accord Stanfield v. Osborne Ind., Inc.,
      52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir. 1995). Indeed, standing to
      assert a 43 claim is limited to a “purely commercial class
      of plaintiffs.” Berni v. Int. Gourmet Rest. of Am., 838 F.2d
      642, 648 (2d Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). While
      Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned,
      they are not commercial. And the good name that a person
      garners in such altruistic feats is not what 43 of
      the Lanham Act protects: it “is a private remedy for a
      commercial plaintiff who meets the burden of proving
      that its commercial interests have been harmed by a
      competitor.” Made in the USA Found., 365 F. 3d at 281
      (quotation and brackets omitted). We addressed a
      similar scenario in Dovenmuehle where we held that,
      under the Lanham Act, relatives who had no commercial
      interest in their family name did not have a
      reasonable interest to protect in the trade name
      “Dovenmuehle, Inc.,” and thus lacked standing to sue.
      Dovenmuehle, 871 F.3d at 700.

      Court opinions are not black boxes. If you want to know why the Judge decided a certain way then read the opinion. It will tell you everything you need to know about that very specific case. If you want to know about "but what ifs" you'll have to look at other cases or look to dicta. Courts don't go on long tangents of hypotheticals.

  6. Backwards thinking court by StuartLaJoie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Googling a potential new hire or business associate for background information has become too widespread for anyone to have "no commercial interest" in their name. False information, even when obviously false, can and does adversely affect anyone looking for jobs or business opportunities beyond paper hats and drivethroughs. It goes to show how out of touch this court is from the mainstream of society.

    --
    FrontDoor 2.02; Noncommercial version Press Escape twice for...
    1. Re:Backwards thinking court by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for. Also someone who googles a lot would hopefully recognize that sort of thing happens a lot.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Backwards thinking court by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for.

      That's not a luxury most people have.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  7. Re:sanity prevails by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really - it was rejected because she couldn't show damage to commercial interests, not because it was bat-crap insane. If this ruling is followed through to its logical conclusion, anyone who DOES run a small business (or a large business) will be able to bring a sucessful claim against a search engine because their algorithm leaves unsavoury results near legitimate information about that person. Now, that doesn't mean that any other court will accept this position (doesn't say it's a precedent-setting appeal decision), or that they will just flip the coin over and follow to the logical conclusion, but it's not a great victory for common sense either (as evidenced by the fact that the ruling harps on about why X obscure law doesn't apply, rather than applying some common sense).

    --
    FGD 135
  8. perfect job for 4chan... by hex0D · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...posting images associated with her name that are truly offensive. It would actually be a good object lesson in why not to file stupid lawsuits like this.

  9. Re:I dunno about that... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If her employers search for her name using a search engine and trust spam links and such, well, that's not a company she would want to work for anyway, I assume. They'd be fucking idiots (like people who judge others based on behavior online, which has nothing to do with their behavior offline in most cases). Yahoo is just a search engine anyway, they don't and shouldn't have any or little responsibility for websites they link to.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  10. 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...
    1. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by alta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I've noticed the same. overall, she won. Yahoo'ing for her (weird word) doesn't turn up anything juicy, just this lawsuit. Damn, the Seventh Circuit Court just got USED!

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    2. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There really is no comparison. The images of Milano were copyrighted and being distributed without permission. There were no images of Stayart herself, copyrighted or otherwise; just that a search for her name returned unrelated links to porn.

      There is no irony, or even contradiction. Two completely different issues.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    3. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

      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, this is the "Stayart Effect" ®

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    4. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by ydrol · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mistress Beverly "whiplash" Stayart should sue Google/Yahoo because first SERP is a bunch of Lawyers diminishing her reputation and frightening away clients

    5. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      No one saw the viagra humor in it, I guess.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  11. 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.
    1. Re:She got what she wanted by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe she prefers it this way...

      For that matter, how do you know this wasn’t her plan all along...?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  12. Re:sanity prevails by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have a bizarre version of logical conclusion. For example, let us say a crazy person brings a wrongful death suit against Google, on the grounds that their father had a heart attack after getting some porn in his search results. If the court rejects the claim because the father did not die from his heart attack (and thus it cannot be wrongful death without a death) the logical conclusion is NOT that Google would be automatically guilty any time anybody does die while using the internet.

    In this instance, a woman was suing Yahoo! because somehow, if you search for a name, any search results are implicitly endorsed by the person whose name that is. Not just one of them, but somehow, all of them in the world all endorse all of those matches, even though the name doesn't appear in the matches. She sued under false endorsement laws. The court refused to hear the case, on the grounds that false endorsement laws require the person to have a commercial interest in making an endorsement. The court specifically didn't even consider whether or not Yahoo! was making any kind of endorsement whatsoever.

    Anyways, if somebody sues under, as you put it "X Obscure Law" then of fucking course the court rules on whether or not "X Obscure Law" applies. That is its one and its only job.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  13. Re:I dunno about that... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, I just typed "Anonymous Coward" into Google. Not a single page about SEO. Seems your SEO abilities are not that good. ;-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  14. This isn't idle. by colmore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a somewhat important story. It isn't idle.

    The interesting thing here is that her suit worked. I just searched google and yahoo for Beverly Stayart, and none of the kind of websites she was talking about came up.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  15. Python? by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

    "Could I have that without so much Beverly Stayart in it?"

    "You mean free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal? Eugh!"

    "What do you mean, 'Eugh!'? I don't like Beverly Stayart!"

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  16. Beverly Stayart? Pfffft. by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just hope that Bobbie Goatse never googles herself.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  17. Re:sanity prevails by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See, that doesn't make sense to me. If someone's argument is wrong at several points, you explain each & every single point where it is wrong. You break every point in the logical chain that you can.

    Why? It's enough to dismiss the case. If they want to try again, they can refile.

    I'd rather it be thrown out because it's fundamentally insane

    Sure, but that's more work. This is cut and dried, so no need to examine and prove the insanity therein.

    This way it just looks like an open door for (a) her to try and get in with a different law (b) anyone else with a commercial interest to protect to fire up a search engine and see if they have an unexpected payday waiting.

    a) she's welcome to try and b) this isn't something that establishes precedent (IANAL), so nothing changes.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  18. I sympathize with this woman by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are others with your plight

    Sincerely,

    John Q. Viagra

    1. Re:I sympathize with this woman by sorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's always nice having an unpopular name that will not be adopted by porn stars.

      Lempdeck Von Scrotomeuncher

  19. Silver lining by chebucto · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cases like this are good in a way.

    Think about it: in 2000 years, long after the American Empire collapses to the Canadian Hordes, scholars will look back at the US legal code and declare it to be the more comprehensive in existence, covering every conceivable eventuality, no matter how brain-dead.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  20. Dude Hardman by dbet · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's my real name, and I have the EXACT same problem.

  21. Dammit! by fishexe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Searching "Beverly Stayart" was my main starting point every time I want to wank off. Now the porn is all replaced with articles about her stupid case. Time to find a new search. Maybe "Christine O'Donnell?"

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009