Suggestion: Don't Sue Google For $50 Billion Over Something It's Not Liable For

from the unless-you-want-the-court-to-slam-you dept

Thu, Aug 14th 2008 1:13pm — Mike Masnick

We see all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits floating around, but here's a good one. Eric Goldman has the story of a journalist who was upset about a story written by a local college professor. The journalist felt the story was defamatory, so obviously, he sued Google for $50 billion. Yes, you read that correctly. Pissed off journalist feels that he was defamed by someone totally unconnected to Google... and responds by suing Google for $50 billion. Not surprisingly, the court wasted no time tossing this lawsuit out, and then even slapped the journalist with an order to pay Google's $12,000 in legal fees. The order to pay those legal fees was later removed on a technicality, but as Goldman notes, it appears that judges are getting pretty sick of these sorts of lawsuits, and are finally beginning to punish folks who are filing them.

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

Filed Under: defamation, liability, section 230
Companies: google

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Nick Stamoulis, 14 Aug 2008 @ 1:17pm

What kind of idiot would first waste their time suing a company totally unrelated but also for 50 bil? What a moron. It's kind of like that guy who recently called 911 over not getting what he wanted out of a cheeseburger he bought at a fast food restaurant... same breed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 14 Aug 2008 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  Well, this is the blowback from the mentality that 'everything is actionable.' Yeah, it helps keep the peasants from fighting back, but it empowers others to sue for anything that displeases them.
  
  Of course, we're not going to get relief from this from the legal community, because this is an income stream.
  
  What we have now is a parody of the rule of law. Pass go on a technicality, collect twelve grand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gunther, 14 Aug 2008 @ 1:50pm

Oh, one of those
Oh, it's one of those "professional journalists" we read so much about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Aug 2008 @ 2:56pm

bummer that they had to drop the $12,000 order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael G., 14 Aug 2008 @ 3:01pm

Hold it...
...I take offense to this story. See you in court and bring you wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wayne vM, 14 Aug 2008 @ 3:04pm

I actually don't blame the journalist at all. Lets be honest, most journalists are idiots in the first place. Blame for this, and all fees awarded to Google should be directed towards the lawyer the journalist used to file the lawsuit (if he had a lawyer). The judge should be fining and sanctioning the lawyer and then maybe the lawsuits will stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2008 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  You don't blame the journalist at all? You're a fool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Stefani, 14 Aug 2008 @ 4:10pm

Journalist
What a Bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another mike, 14 Aug 2008 @ 4:28pm

Since lawyers have set themselves up as the gatekeepers to the legal system, and 50 billion ain't exactly small claims, there's a pretty good chance the journalist had a lawyer. It's good that judges are starting to hit back against these type of whiny brat lawsuits, but they should start targeting the lawyers. That way the lawyers have the incentive to talk their clients out of filing these stupid lawsuits.
Oh and why Google? Did the journo do a vanity search and the professor's article was the first result?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fletch, 14 Aug 2008 @ 5:47pm

What's in a Name
Oh c'mon - the technicality here is that his last name is Goldman. Don't BS us! Special Treatment-R-US | They run this country from inside the Gov't (Greenspan) Hollywood (Goldberg/Lucas,etc.-on and on and on) and is it any wonder that practically evey single lawyer out there (Mark Goldman/Shapiro-OJ lawyers) is one, too! You do not even want to piss one of these guys off. The Dradel Mafia will find you no matter where you to try and hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 14 Aug 2008 @ 7:01pm
  
  Re: What's in a Name
  Lovely. Not just an ignorant anti-semite, but one so dumb he can't figure out that Eric was merely the guy who wrote about the case, not the one involved in it.
  
  Good work, Fletch, in showing just how ignorant you are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fletch, 14 Aug 2008 @ 5:47pm

What's in a Name
Oh c'mon - the technicality here is that his last name is Goldman. Don't BS us! Special Treatment-R-US | They run this country from inside the Gov't (Greenspan) Hollywood (Goldberg/Lucas,etc.-on and on and on) and is it any wonder that practically evey single lawyer out there (Mark Goldman/Shapiro-OJ lawyers) is one, too! You do not even want to piss one of these guys off. The Dradel Mafia will find you no matter where you to try and hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 14 Aug 2008 @ 8:41pm

Lawsuits
About time they tossed them out, and start filing lawsuits against them for such stupid (yes, STUPID) frivioulous lawsuits. Dumb dick sticks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JR, 15 Aug 2008 @ 6:15am

What, no Streisand Effect?
Aw, I wanted to follow links to the original story, so the idiocy of the person who brought the suit could be even more apparent, at least to me and anyone I point to it. But no links to follow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomason, 15 Aug 2008 @ 7:57am

wire to wire libel
Yeah, no links, but the op is on the Minn. COA website. It pretty much was a slam dunk. All the lawyerhaters on this post might note that the plaintiff represented himself, viz., no lawyer would take his case. How too could you expect a person representing himself to fare well when Google's lawyer's first name is "Justice"?
That aside, the alleged slander was only published on an online webzine, then "Google posted [that] article." By federal statute, no "interactive computer service" [here, the big Googie] can be liable for the content of "another information content provider." That law may offer somewhat of a dodge - the well-moneyed "service" could republish content from a judgment-proof "content provider," and the libel would go unpunished. Publish a libelous article on a website in Iran, which then is "posted" on Google, and again, no lawyer will take that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifty, 15 Aug 2008 @ 9:10am

ha, ha,
$50 billion!???

That is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HennepinCountyLawyer, 15 Aug 2008 @ 1:17pm

Stop paying attention to how much a suit is asking for. It's utterly meaningless.

As a matter of fact, people get so worked up over that that the rules in Minnesota now specify that if you think you're entitled to more than $50,000, you ask for "reasonable damages in excess of $50,000".

Which this guy presumably didn't know because he didn't have a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 17 Aug 2008 @ 6:09pm

Keep going
I say that the judge should keep going. Add another $5,000 for wasting the court's time (have to pay the judge for his time, the clerks for their time, etc).

And I think the judges in these kinds of cases should start penalizing the ****-ing lawyers for taking the case. Yes, I know that some lawyers will take any case, especially if the client is pushy enough (or throws around enough money), but they should know better.

What would happen if the judge in this case suspended the lawyer's license for 6 months because the lawyer was dumb enough to try to take this case to court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]