In a first-of-its-kind case, Google has been sued by a California parenting website, www.kinderstart.com, because Google effectively dropped its Page Rank of that website to zero, wiping it off the "Google" map if you will. This, in turn, caused a loss of almost all traffic to KinderStart.com. In a rather bizarre twist of legal reasoning, KinderStart.com has argued that Google dropped its Page Rank on that website to quench competition, as KinderStart.com also features a search function that it claims (quite humorously) competes directly with Google. Hmm, shall I use Google, Yahoo! or KinderStart for my web searches today? Give me a break.
This appears to be a half-hearted attempt to sue Google over its practice of ranking websites however it wants to rank them. Is there any recourse from a site who may fall in Google's search rankings -- for any reason? Highly doubtful.
I agree with Google here -- it can rank websites any way it wants to and change its formula (as it does already) any way it sees fit, at any time. You may not agree with how Google ranks websites and how it changes that mix regularly, but if you have a site that depends that much on a single source of website traffic, you have other issues to deal with.
I'm not saying that you should not court Google's Page Rank system for visibility to customers. Obviously millions of small websites do this. But be prepared in case your ranking falls for some reason. If I were Google, there would be no way I would reveal proprietary reasons for how websites are ranked. That would invite fraud on a monumental scale.
Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-05-2006 @ 10:32AM
Loa said...
Further, many of these Websites that are improperly and/or unlawfully severed from connection through the search engine, are in the very same competitive markets as Defendant. Such violations, individually and together, warrant declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages according to proof under applicable law based on injuries to Plaintiffs’ person, property, and businesses
7-05-2006 @ 10:35AM
Richard B said...
If you look at Kinderstart.com you can tell , it now has its pagerank back. So the law suit that brings in all these press releases and inbound links gave it back its PR, maybe it was worth it.
7-05-2006 @ 1:21PM
roxx said...
Monopolys are defined by their ability to influence pricing.. It may just be that Google is a natural and abusive monopoly and this case is the first of many.