Suing Your Search Engine Optimizer Because Your Ranking Sucks
from the a-new-twist dept
Why is it that people have this weird expectation that having a high search engine ranking is some sort of legally guaranteed right? We've seen a bunch of lawsuits recently where companies sue search engines because they're not happy with their ranking, but here's a twist. Threadwatch points us to the story of a search engine optimizer (SEO) who is being sued by a former client because that client's search engine rankings have dropped below those of another company, who later hired the same person. The details aren't completely filled in, but it sounds like the complaint from the company is that the SEO later worked for this same company and helped "optimize" their rankings so they beat out the former client. The SEO notes that the work he did for the original client was four years ago and they've done little to nothing to continue the process of optimizing their site. The guy also claims that his agreements with companies make it clear that he does not work exclusively with them, and you'd have to imagine that most SEO contracts do not promise specific results -- especially not ones that would last four years after a contract is complete. It sounds like yet another case of a company suing simply because they don't like something, not because they have any real legal claim.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I had company and hired an ad agency to make a campaign for me, I couldn't expect the ad agency to not accept future work from my competitors. That's silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A. Company hires worker to do job.
B. Worker does job.
C. Worker no longer works for company.
D. Four years pass.
E. Worker starts work for original companies competitor.
F. Original company doesn't like it and sues?
That's just dumber than shit and if you practice business the same way good fucking luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue Ford? great idea!
Sh*t. Now you'll probably sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sue Ford? great idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how to end frivolous lawsuits
If a judge deems that a lawsuit has no legal footing in the first place, the plaintiff's attorney can NOT charge for their work, can NOT be reimbursed for expenses, MUST pay a hefty fine, MUST cover the court's expenses, and MUST reimburse any expenses incurred by the defendant due to the suit. Some would say the plaintiff should be responsible for this, but I say his attorney should be, since he was hired to make the determination of whether footing exists. These lawyers know good and well when they're filing a frivolous suit. When H&R Block does my taxes, they're responsible if they screw them up.
And one more thing: after filing a certain number of frivolous suits, they should lose their license to practice in all 50 states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: suing your seo
It would be the former client's responsibility to stay on top of it. Maybe they should be looking at their own IT people? Did they think that nothing was going to change in 4 years?
If anyone came along and thought the seo did a good job on the former client's company rankings, that's all the more reason to hire the guy, since I believe this kind of thing would be portfolio-based.
There is nothing in the article that says they signed any kind of agreement preventing this situation. Also, there isn't any info on whether the former client retained the seo to maintain their rankings.
Can't really see much of a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how could you? :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as a former seo
Regardless of whether or not somebody else gets more than you, your contract is still fulfilled.
Ranking position means nothing. It's just another pointless metric that SEOs like to throw around.
I'll take 2 #5 rankings over 1 #1 ranking any day..
It's not about where you show up in the listing, it's about getting more targeted visitors to your website and increasing sales. Eventually customers will understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan is wrong
vitamin consumption facts calories
Than #4 for:
vitamins
Especially on MSN.. Google is important but people don't realize is that SEO is SEO. So what you have to wrry about is where you are on the Yahoos, like yahoo.de and yahoo.eu.. more than just google.com.
Lastly focusing on sales is a short term goal. But the long term goal should always be Adsense revenues because 468x80 banner ads aren't that good anymore. Ergo, the more traffic you get, the more untargetted visitors you get who will want to leave your site, and therefore the more money you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 years?
Suppose 2 people selling the same product come to the same company for services? Dilemma time .. could they work for both? Sure you could improve both their rankings but they could still claim your working for a competitor - especially if one has a better ranking than the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEO
One day I am going to take them up on it, and say they only get paid if I am top rank on google for a search on 'microsoft'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome
You really don't need a reason to sue here. You can sue just because you're unhappy about something (and occasionally win)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punish them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I´d be laughing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reaction to Sued Over SEO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue?
http://www.marekskoczylas.co.uk/imgexpoert/seoexpertlondon1.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]