Google enjoys its ubiquity like Donald Trump enjoys hearing his name said over and over again.
Indeed, there are days when some people bathe in Chrome, Gmail, Google Search, and Blogspot and don't even stop to wonder that they belong to a company that views everything from atop its mountain.
That's because Google is nice and warm and efficient. Or something.
Amanda U. Ajuluchuku, however, doesn't believe Google is as nice or warm as it seems. Indeed, she took legal action in an attempt to prove her righteousness.
The substance of her case, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern California branch, was that she signed up for a Blogspot account. She blogged about whether celebrity marriages were "Made in Heaven" or "Made in Hell."
I hadn't been aware that these were the only two options, as so many seem to me to be "Made in Purgatory."
Google, because it is an enterprise like no other, allegedly suggested that Ajuluchuku allow for ads to appear on her blog. These would bring her money on a pay-per-click basis.
However, Ajuluchuku claims Google then blocked the ads "in a desperate attempt to keep (plaintiff) poor." Moreover, she believes Google wanted to prevent her "from leaving NYC."
She claims Google discriminated against her on the basis of "race, color, and disability."
And then there's this little nuance: she claims Google "falsely imprisoned her."
In reading through the complaint, I can only assume that she feels she was imprisoned by ads. Or perhaps the lack of them. Which seems quite odd.
Indeed, the court seems to have sensed there was something entirely odd about Ajuluchuku herself.
For it discovered she had filed "several hundred frivolous complaints" all across the land.
She is so celebrated that Forbes wrote of her, back in 2007.
At that time, she sued Bank of America for allegedly losing a $200 check. This, she said, caused her to endure "panic and anxiety attacks, severe dizzy spells, headaches, and cold chills."
This was, of course, understandable. What was, perhaps, less understandable was that she measured her distress at $5 billion. (Forbes reported that B of A neglected to reply to the suit in a timely manner and, having thus made itself vulnerable, settled for $3,000.)
Stunningly, in the Google case, the California District Court yesterday threw out Ajuluchuku's complaint, saying it couldn't find any legal basis for it whatsoever.
More Technically Incorrect
One example of the court's reasoning was that Ajuluchuku had filed this as a civil rights (employment) complaint and there was no evidence that Google had ever employed her.
You will be relieved, though, to know that Ajuluchuku isn't merely picking on Google. For I have discovered she has a civil rights lawsuit against Apple too.
She claims Apple discriminated against her blue dress. She claims she was banned from the Apple store on Mother's Day.
Her suit reads, in part: "I informed her (the Apple store employee) that I had bought it from Forever 21, a few yards away. However, defendant ousted me."
Ajuluchuku goes on to claim that Apple stole pictures of her in the dress. Oh, and she allegedly held a heated discussion with the store manager -- whom she describes in her complaint as "Defendant's manager (Arab)" -- about whether she could use the store's computers to take pictures of herself in the dress.
You will be wondering if behind Ajuluchuku there might be some venal lawyers, waiting for vulture pickings. But, no. She represents herself.
Still, she is only asking for an apology from Apple. Oh, wait. She's also asking for $10 million.