June 30, 2006 2:59 PM PDT

Suit over poor Google ranking may go forward

Related Stories

FAQ: When Google is not your friend

February 3, 2006

Google lands Web search patent

February 26, 2003
SAN JOSE, Calif.--A federal judge in California hinted that a parenting Web site that's suing Google over a poor ranking in the search giant's massive index would be able to proceed with its lawsuit.

During a hearing here Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he's considering issuing an order that would allow KinderStart.com to amend its lawsuit against Google to add more specifics. The parent-focused directory and search engine site claims Google violated antitrust and other laws by handing KinderStart low rankings.

KinderStart alleges that its parenting search engine site suffered an approximate 70 percent drop in monthly traffic in March last year after Google buried its visibility in search results. KinderStart, which claims to have originally been in the first 10 results when Web users scoured the Internet for KinderStart, also saw an 80 percent drop in AdSense revenue.

"What Google is trying to do is take out the competition," said Gregory Yu, KinderStart's attorney.

The parenting site alleges that Google engaged in anticompetitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws by removing a competitor from its top search pages in order to maintain its dominance in the search market. During his questioning of the parties, the issue of antitrust appeared to resonate with the judge, who indicated he understood the point KinderStart was trying to make.

While Google and other search engines have been sued over rankings before, no lawsuit of this type appears to have succeeded. That's in part because search engines can claim to have a First Amendment right to rank Web sites as they see fit--much like a restaurant reviewer or book reviewer has a right to publish its own rankings.

Fogel set a Sept. 29 hearing to address revisions in the complaint, requests for a preliminary injunction on the relevant counts, and any motions on substantive matters such as Google's request to throw out KinderStart's lawsuit and issue penalties against the parenting site.

Jonathan Jacobson, an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who is representing Google, argued that the search giant has "no obligation" to help its rivals. He pointed to past cases where arguments like KinderStart's have failed, such as one in which a Pepsi bottler wanted a percentage of space in soda vending machines operated by competitor Coca-Cola.

"What would prevent Microsoft from coming to us, saying Google is not adequately promoting Microsoft?" Jacobson asked.

Fogel appeared less sympathetic to KinderStart's claims that its First Amendment rights were violated when its visibility on Google's search pages plummeted--thereby allegedly impeding its ability to have its virtual voice heard.

"What KinderStart is saying is that Google violated its First Amendment rights....I don't see it. Is there anything more you can address on this that you have not already?" Fogel asked KinderStart's attorney.

KinderStart contends that Google's dominant position in the market makes it responsible for assuring there is a free flow of information in the so-called Internet forum.

The judge questioned KinderStart's ability to "plead around" the language in its contract with Google that indicates the search giant ranks sites in no particular way.

David Kramer, a Wilson Sonsini attorney also representing Google, said the search giant's PageRank system is subjective, using a combination of reviews into whether a Web site is adhering to its guidelines and is worth a user's time to view.

"Google is constantly evaluating Web sites for standards and quality, which is entirely subjective," Kramer said.

The judge probed Kramer on the topic of whether Google engages in misleading behavior, and whether it uses objective criteria to evaluate sites--rather than solely relying on subjective reasoning.

"What if, say, Google says it uses facts one through 10 to evaluate a site, but actually uses number 11 to decide its rank. Isn't that misleading?" the judge asked.

Kramer, however, said Google readers understand that the site's ranking system is subjective and based on Google's opinion about whether a site is worth viewing.

KinderStart is hardly the first company to face a fall in its Google ranking. Maintaining a high Google page rank is a common topic of discussion among Webmasters.

In February, Google noted that BMW's Germany-based site was completely blacklisted, and three years ago, SearchKing lost its bid for a preliminary injunction motion after it was blacklisted. Another plaintiff abandoned his lawsuit against Google earlier this month.

See more CNET content tagged:
ranking, First Amendment, antitrust, lawsuit, Google Inc.

15 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Google crap!!!
Google can bury its competition deep down but claiming it to be like Coke wanting space on Pepsi bottles but it cries foul when MS defaults ITS browser to ITS search engine even when there is an easy way to switch, it didnt also like the fact the IE7 list available search engines alphabetically. Google is probably the most hypocritical company on earth.
Posted by FutureGuy (742 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Clue
They coudl always rely on another search engine - Altavista for instance
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Link Flag
competition? yeah right
competition to Google? how can stupid Kinderstart be compared to Google? that's ignorant.

Google doesn't just blacklist sites for the hell of it. they violated Google's TOS... period. not much else needs to be said.
Posted by pacificd (8 comments )
Link Flag
Google crap!!!
Google can bury its competition deep down but claiming it to be like Coke wanting space on Pepsi bottles but it cries foul when MS defaults ITS browser to ITS search engine even when there is an easy way to switch, it didnt also like the fact the IE7 list available search engines alphabetically. Google is probably the most hypocritical company on earth.
Posted by FutureGuy (742 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Clue
They coudl always rely on another search engine - Altavista for instance
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Link Flag
competition? yeah right
competition to Google? how can stupid Kinderstart be compared to Google? that's ignorant.

Google doesn't just blacklist sites for the hell of it. they violated Google's TOS... period. not much else needs to be said.
Posted by pacificd (8 comments )
Link Flag
KinderKrap
KinderStart is a list. Whats worse, its a closed list, you apply and if they wish they add you. How do they do that? Whichever way I'm sure it is completely subjective. Google is also subjective, they rank listers low. They supply no INFORMATION about the search term and its relevant information that will get you a high ranking.

I visited their page when I first heard of this suit a while back. There is no link to request being added to thier site. There is a link to advertise which gives you an email address. At the top of thier page is a search box listing search engines in ascending alphabetic order except that in the drop down KinderStart is listed out of order and is first and is the default.

If thier existance depends on a google ranking, as it appears to do based on thier claim of lost hits, which must in turn relate to lost revenue, thats just tough luck. And a very poor business model to depend on one search engine for 80% of your profit(Kinders claim is a loss of 80% of thier traffic which must equate to about the same loss of profit).

As anyone who knows about business can tell you, if you rely on one main client for the larger part of your profit you are on shaky ground no matter how well you are doing. You lose that client and you go belly up.

Kinder start is listed low because of the fact they are just a lister, an advertiser of links. They should look for a better business model instead of wasting money on a lawsuit that should be thrown out.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
KinderKrap
KinderStart is a list. Whats worse, its a closed list, you apply and if they wish they add you. How do they do that? Whichever way I'm sure it is completely subjective. Google is also subjective, they rank listers low. They supply no INFORMATION about the search term and its relevant information that will get you a high ranking.

I visited their page when I first heard of this suit a while back. There is no link to request being added to thier site. There is a link to advertise which gives you an email address. At the top of thier page is a search box listing search engines in ascending alphabetic order except that in the drop down KinderStart is listed out of order and is first and is the default.

If thier existance depends on a google ranking, as it appears to do based on thier claim of lost hits, which must in turn relate to lost revenue, thats just tough luck. And a very poor business model to depend on one search engine for 80% of your profit(Kinders claim is a loss of 80% of thier traffic which must equate to about the same loss of profit).

As anyone who knows about business can tell you, if you rely on one main client for the larger part of your profit you are on shaky ground no matter how well you are doing. You lose that client and you go belly up.

Kinder start is listed low because of the fact they are just a lister, an advertiser of links. They should look for a better business model instead of wasting money on a lawsuit that should be thrown out.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just 2 thoughts...
When you search for "google" in kinderstart.com you find no results.

Kinderstart.com instead of legal action how about making your website more accesible for the search engines like google, so they can spider it better, index it better, resulting is better rankings? It is cheaper and probably more effective than the courts.
Posted by jazyfko (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
lmao
your right...
Posted by djpaisley (80 comments )
Link Flag
Just 2 thoughts...
When you search for "google" in kinderstart.com you find no results.

Kinderstart.com instead of legal action how about making your website more accesible for the search engines like google, so they can spider it better, index it better, resulting is better rankings? It is cheaper and probably more effective than the courts.
Posted by jazyfko (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
lmao
your right...
Posted by djpaisley (80 comments )
Link Flag
Google...
what makes you think Google did it on purpose... I can tell why they have a page rank of "0" their site is spammy.
Posted by djpaisley (80 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Google...
what makes you think Google did it on purpose... I can tell why they have a page rank of "0" their site is spammy.
Posted by djpaisley (80 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Do i have an rights? I have been blacklisted by Google and i don't know why?
Posted by cliffchesley (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.