Kinderstart Case Study

1691 Words4 Pages

KinderStart.com, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., No. C06-2057JF (RS), 2007 WL 831806 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) Statement of Facts: Plaintiff website operator, KinderStart.com enrolled in Defendant, online search engine, Google’s AdSense Program in 2003 and paid for sponsored links. Plaintiff then began placing Defendant’s network advertisements onto its site and received payment from google. On March 19, 2005, Plaintiff realized that his website had suffered a fall in traffic and page views. Plaintiff realized that common key word searches on Google’s search engine did not list his website in relation to past visibility. As a result of this drop in referrals, Plaintiff’s monthly revenue also suffered a loss of over 80%. Furthermore, Plaintiff website’s usefulness rating dropped and its website was blocked by Defendant, Google blocked. Plaintiff was not notified that the blockage would occur, nor was he instructed as to how to prevent the blockage. Procedural History: Plaintiff website operator, KinderStart.com filed a complaint against Defendant Google, alleging nine claims for relief: violation of the right to free speech under the United States and California Constitutions; attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; violations of the Communications Act, unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200; unfair practices under California Business and Professions Code; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; defamation and libel, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff then proceed to file an amended complaint asserting s... ... middle of paper ... ...motion. The court correctly held that there were insufficient allegations to state a First Amendment claims against Defendant. Furthermore, the court accurately concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that relevant aspects of Defendant’s search engine were equivalent of a traditional public forum. The Court decided properly when dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation allegations because these did not alleged malice. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1991), United States v. E. I.du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the interpretation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, Cal. Civil Code §47 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and the decision in New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp.2d 1090 (2004) were crucial to properly decide on the case.

More about Kinderstart Case Study

Open Document