Judge Says Search Engines Have No Obligation To Carry Ads They Don't Like
from the as-you-might-expect dept
As the various search engines, lead mainly by Google, have become more and more important in every day life, it seems that some people seem to be assuming that they now represent some kind of body that must grant certain fundamental rights to people. That's why we've seen all these lawsuits from companies upset that their search ranking sucks. The latest case is even more ridiculous. Someone bought some gripe ads on Google, Yahoo and MSN, only to have them rejected. He then sued all three companies arguing that the search engines should be required to post his ads. The judge in the case appears to have made quick work of it, dismissing almost all of the claims and pointing out in no uncertain terms that many were specious and frivolous. As Eric Goldman points out, there are a few key points in the judge's decision. First, search engines have every right (as per the First Amendment) to decide what does and does not appear on their own websites. Second, section 230 of the CDA continues to do its job granting search engines immunity from being sued despite editorial decisions. And, finally, the court found that since search engines are private entities and not government bodies, there's no First Amendment claim to censorship should they reject an ad. Once again, it's nice to see a good decision backed up with good reasoning on a tech case of this nature.
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
I am Jack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am Jack
What?
Being clever.
Great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am Jack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am Jack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long will it last
I guarantee we'll reminisce about the heady days when the search engines actually owned their own pages. Some judge will find it somewhere, in some arcane equal housing law or newspaper advertising statute somewhere, and the engines will lose their rights to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ONE JUDGE's RULING - even the Supeme Court Does NO
Yahoo claimed they only took ads from sites they hosted - while Google claimed they do not take ads that criticize people. MSN did NOT respond
These are three distinct reasons for refusing an ad.
While Google's stance is understandable - Yahoo's stance just appears to be selfish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONE JUDGE's RULING - even the Supeme Court Doe
Don't like it? Go start your own site and do it better.
If not, just shut up about "fairness". They built the ballpark, they brought the bases, bats, gloves and balls. Guess whose rules you're going to use if you want to play...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONE JUDGE's RULING - even the Supeme Court Doe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bought or Tried To Buy?
There's an important distinction between "bought" and "tried to buy". If he had actually bought the ads then yes, sue away... even if they were rejected and his money returned I would say some action could be taken. However as I understand it he never actually succeeded in buying the ads, so the article is a little misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bought or Tried To Buy?
There's an important distinction between "bought" and "tried to buy". If he had actually bought the ads then yes, sue away... even if they were rejected and his money returned I would say some action could be taken. However as I understand it he never actually succeeded in buying the ads, so the article is a little misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper Ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
search engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good decision but...
Let me state that I didn't have a problem with what they were going to do in China either as they are a private company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Langdon v. Google
That is contrary to Google's numerous public assertions that its search results are "objective" the result of a computer algorithm. The truth is, there is
human manipulation in their results. Why didn't the arrogant Eric Goldman mention these facts?
The analogy to a newspaper is ridiculous. There must be a thousand newspapers in the country, but only three search engines, with half of all searches being done on Google. Doesn't it bother anyone that one company can arbitrarily remove a site from half of all internet searches, without any viable reason.
Google doesn't allow ads or against individuals?
Just search "Impeach George Bush" and you'll see that's just another Googlie.
Chris Langdon, qiology@aol.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]