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."

5 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 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.

    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. 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 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"!