Bev Stayart Loses Yet Again In Her Quixotic Quest To Blame Search Engines For Search Results She Doesn't Like

from the stayartisms dept

We've covered Beverly "Bev" Stayart a few times -- and even been legally threatened by Stayart and her lawyer (also named Stayart). As you may recall, Stayart sued Yahoo/Overture after doing a search on her name, and seeing a suggestion that included "levitra" and "cialis." Stayart took offense to such terms being associated with her name. She tried a few different questionable legal theories including "privacy rights" and that because the search engine made the suggestions, the search engines have liability for impermissably selling her name. It had also kicked off with a trademark claim over her name, despite the lack of any trademark in her name. The threat against us was because she didn't like some of our comments, which necessitated us having our lawyer explain Section 230 to her as well, after which we never heard from Stayart again. However, after losing in her lawsuit against Yahoo, she sued Google over the same "levitra" connection. Oh, and she appealed and lost her original loss against Yahoo.

Well, she's now lost her case against Google as well. The court, after mentioning the earlier cases, basically notes that it could have just dismissed the case on Section 230 grounds, but goes beyond that to dismiss the case on the overall merits. It dumps the publicity rights claim by noting that (a) she failed to show her name has any commercial value (needed to get publicity rights) or (b) that Google ever actually made use of her name.

First, plaintiff alleges no facts which suggest that her name has any commercial value or that Google derives any pecuniary benefit as a result of the connection on the internet between her name and sexual dysfunction medications. Second, plaintiff alleges no facts which suggest that Google used her name for any purpose much less that of advertising or trade. Plaintiff’s allegations establish no more than that Google enables internet users to access publically available materials connected to plaintiff’s name. And it is not unlawful to use a person's name "primarily for the purpose of communicating information. . ."

The court also rejects her claim that Google is selling ads on the phrase "bev stayart levitra" by noting that Google is clearly selling ads just on the term "levitra," rather than on her name (though, it's questionable if it's in any way against the law to sell ads on someone's name).

Eric Goldman, who wrote the analysis linked above, wonders if she'll appeal this ruling too and give the Seventh Circuit appeals court "a second mocking opportunity." Meanwhile, I feel compelled to point out -- once again -- that the further Stayart tilts out this particular windmill, the stronger and stronger the connections between her name and the terms she finds so objectionable becomes. This was pointed out all the way back when she began this campaign, and it appears she still hasn't quite understood this concept.

Filed Under: bev stayart, beverly stayart, privacy rights

Bev Stayart Sues Yahoo Again For Violating Her Privacy Rights

from the why-levitra? dept

You may recall a woman named Bev or Beverly Stayart, who sued Yahoo a year ago, because she was upset with the fact that the results of a search on her name pointed to sites she did not wish to be associated with and she did not believe they accurately reflected what a search on her name should show. We pointed out that there seemed to be little chance that Yahoo would be even remotely liable under a Section 230 analysis. Sometime after the post, we were sent a legal threat letter from Ms. Stayart's lawyers demanding that we remove certain comments on that post or face a lawsuit. We responded and explained why we would not remove the comments and never heard back. However, soon after that, the court (as expected) dismissed the lawsuit against Yahoo, and also denied Stayart's request to refile.

Eric Goldman now alerts us to the news that Ms. Stayart has filed a new lawsuit against Yahoo over a slightly different issue. Apparently (and I checked, this is true), if you are using Yahoo's search engine, and you type in the search for Bev Stayart, Yahoo's "suggested search" feature, offers up "bev stayart levitra" as the option after just "bev stayart." Also, on the results page, Yahoo asks you if you want to try "bev stayart levitra" as a search instead.

Ms. Stayart is apparently offended by this connection between her name and the drug Levitra, and claims that Yahoo is responsible for the content. The lawsuit suggests that Yahoo has no safe harbor because this algorithmically generated content is created by Yahoo itself. In many ways, this reminds me of the recent lawsuits we've discussed in France where Google was sued for what its suggested searches put forth.

While I will refrain from commenting on my opinion of the new lawsuit, I will note that if you actually do click through on the search for "bev stayart levitra" on Yahoo, you do get a clue as to why Yahoo connected the terms. It's because at the top of the results is the court's dismissal of the original lawsuit, which includes the court summarizing the situation, with the following statement:

Stayart alleges that Yahoo! and Overture knowingly connected and continues to connect her name (Bev Stayart) with sexual dysfunction drugs Cialis, Viagra and Levitra on its search engine results for her.

In other words, it appears that a big part of the reason for these current results is because of the original lawsuit she filed. And, given that the new lawsuit makes regular use of these terms, you would have to figure that it will remain a commonly combined phrase online. Given all of that, I do wonder if things would have been better off if no complaint had been filed in the first place. All the original complaint did, apparently, was enhance the connection between her name and the drug Levitra in the eyes of Yahoo's algorithm. Now, you can say that Yahoo's suggestion algorithm is weak (it certainly appears that way), but does a bad algorithm violate someone's privacy rights?

Filed Under: bev stayart, beverly stayart, privacy rights
Companies: yahoo

Court Dismisses Case Against Yahoo From Woman Upset How She Appeared In Results

from the not-yahoo's-liability dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a woman named Beverly Stayart, who had sued Yahoo over what she found when she did a search on her name. Her complaint was that some of the links advertised porn sites and possibly contained malware, and that this was a violation of her trademark and privacy rights. After the posting, we received a number of comments on that post, and more recently, received a legal letter from the woman's lawyer, demanding that we remove many of the comments or get sued. With the help of Paul Alan Levy at Public Citizen, we replied to the letter, refusing to remove the comments, and detailing our reasons why. To date, we have not been sued over this, but you may want to take our reporting on the subject with whatever caveats, given these facts.

Earlier this week, the court dismissed the lawsuit against Yahoo and denied Stayart's request to refile. The court had trouble with the idea that this was a trademark claim, noting that just because she does not like how her name is shown, it does not create a trademark violation. There are two major problems: (1) she doesn't appear to be using her name in commerce in this particular field and (2) there is little to no likelihood of confusion. From the ruling:

Similarly, Stayart is not engaged in the commercial marketing of her identity, and she does not allege an intent to commercialize. Stayart alleges that her name has commercial value, but it is clear that Stayart's complaint arises from the distasteful association of her name with pornographic images, advertisements for sexual dysfunction drugs, and a sexually-oriented dating service..... Stayart cannot satisfy this requirement [likelihood of confusion] as a matter of law because her complaint explicitly disavows any association with pornographic materials, sexual dysfunction drugs, or sexually-oriented dating services (i.e., Various' website AdultFriendFinder.com). As noted above, Stayart alleges that "in no way has [she] ever engaged in a promiscuous lifestyle, or other overt sexual activities, which she and a large portion of her community and social circle consider perverse and abhorrent." Complaint, ¶ 20. This allegation contravenes the likelihood of confusion, and Stayart pleaded herself out of court on her Lanham Act claim. No one who accessed these links could reasonably conclude that Bev Stayart endorsed the products at issue.

From this, it would certainly appear that the court is not at all persuaded that you can bring a trademark infringement lawsuit against a search engine based on how your name appears.

Filed Under: bev stayart, beverly stayart, search results, trademark
Companies: yahoo

Woman Sues Yahoo Because Search On Her Name Links To Porn And Malware

from the and-now-it'll-link-to-bogus-lawsuits dept

Eric Goldman alerts us to the latest questionable lawsuit against a search engine -- this time involving a woman suing Yahoo due to her unhappiness concerning search results on her own name. You have to read Goldman's full description of the case -- I can't do it justice -- but the woman appears to claim that she's an important figure and the only one in the world with her name (Beverly Stayart or Bev Stayart), and was greatly upset to find that when she searched on her name, there were links to questionable sites -- some of which showed adult videos or had her antivirus software warn her of malicious attacks. It's unclear why the woman thinks she owns the rights to all search results on her name, but it seems quite likely that Section 230 safe harbors should protect Yahoo from any sort of liability. Of course, with articles like this one and Goldman's, it seems likely that search results will show plenty of other links now as well.

Filed Under: bev stayart, beverly stayart, lawsuits, liability, searches
Companies: yahoo