
Panda loss as libel - llambda
http://blog.fogus.me/2012/06/12/panda-loss-as-libel/
======
Matt_Cutts
On the search engine side, there's been a couple of solid court decisions in
the United States:

\- In SearchKing vs. Google, a company sued because it didn't like its
rankings/PageRank. SearchKing had been selling links that passed PageRank,
which violates Google's quality guidelines. The court determined that
"PageRanks are opinions - opinions of the significance of particular web sites
as they correspond to a search query. Other search engines express different
opinions, as each search engine's method of determining relative significance
is unique. The Court simply finds there is no conceivable way to prove that
the relative significance assigned to a given web site is false." As a result,
Google was entitled to "full constitutional protection" for its opinions.

\- In KinderStart.com vs. Google, a company sued Google over a lower ranking.
The judge not only dismissed that case, he allowed sanctions against
KinderStart's counsel for making various claims (like Google skewing results
for political/religious reasons) that couldn't be proven.

So in the U.S., we have a couple very nice court cases that establish that
search engine rankings are opinions and protected speech. If someone tried to
sue over a set of search results, I believe they would find that a very hard
case to make.

Of course, things like libel and defamation apply online as well as offline.

------
Tichy
Is it possible to simply ignore completely pointless attacks by lawyers? It
boggles my mind that it should be possible to essentially mount a DoS against
any person by unleashing lawyers on them. That is, why can other people force
me to spend time and braincycles on their insanity?

~~~
pavel_lishin
You can ignore them right up until they file an actual case - if you continue
to ignore it after that, you will lose the case by default and be subject to
whatever penalty they or the judge decide to levy against you.

(IANAL, this ain't legal advice, don't take legal advise from random Russians
on the internet.)

~~~
try-finally
"don't take legal advise from random Russians on the internet" - Ironically
some of the best legal advice I've read.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Oops; too late to edit, now.

------
noonespecial
I figure eventually we'll have to deal with lawsuits from monied interests as
a very real threat to freedom of speech.

The ability to sue anyone for anything at any time will become mutually
exclusive with the right to speak publicly without fear of government enforced
persecution. We'll have to look at our founding principles and decide what's
most important to us. The current patent mess does not leave me optimistic.

~~~
leephillips
Eventually? That, or the threat of it, is the daily reality if you write or
publish, and has been since long before there was an internet. The libel suit
against me (<http://www.credentialwatch.org/legal/null.shtml>) was as
frivolous as they come, but that didn't mean it wasn't a major disruption. It
can happen to anyone: the complaint against me cited comments on websites like
this one as well as my actual articles.

Another comment mentioned SLAPP: only some states have SLAPP legislation.
Generally, no matter how frivolous the action, you still need to defend
against it in court, and that is a major project that will displace much of
what you'd rather be doing (unless you are _very_ wealthy).

You convolve three separate things: legal persecution by private parties,
government persecution, and the patent system.

------
imgabe
Search rank losses can't "be" libel. They could, theoretically, be damages
caused as the result of libel. In order for something to be libelous though,
it must be false, and in such a way that an average person could believe it.
Satire is not libel. Writing about how you don't like Pepsi is not libel. I
don't believe Pepsi could successfully sue you for expressing an opinion about
their product, no matter where it ranked in Google's search results. I doubt
their lawyers would even try. Of course IANAL, etc, etc.

------
mef
Is it feasible for one party to successfully sue another for the decisions
made by Google, a third party? Is there another example where this currently
occurs?

~~~
wmf
One way to look at it is that Google is making decisions about ranking.
Another way is that an algorithm doesn't count as a "decision", but crafting
specific inputs that change Google's ranking algorithm's output in a known way
is actionable.

------
grabeh
The article's conclusion states 'are search rank losses the new libel?' when
the current state of affairs is that page rank losses can be the consequence
of libel which is clearly actionable under current laws as Matt_Cutts
mentions...

------
cantankerous
Doesn't the situation the author is describing fall somewhat into the domain
of SLAPP lawsuits? Maybe not quite, but there seems to be some overlap there.

------
rdl
Santorum may be a better (or worse) example.

