Kinderstart v Google 2006

The lawsuit of Kinderstart v. Google in 2006

Let's say you have a business, and to generate more traffic within your business you decide to purchase a spot within a server that is guaranteeing you to have large numbers of people who not only see your business but will see yours either at the top as the first selection or nearest the top amongst many who offer the same services. This server is also promising, with your purchase to utalize their reach to garner attention for you, that your business will have people searching for services and product on your sight more readily based upon your location on their server. The price you pay will guarantee your location and accessability. 

Kinderstart is a searchable web site directory, albeit quite large in capacity, intended to direct parents of "children aged zero to seven" with information on parenting, child care, and related subjects. "Finding information specifically related to the care of young children on the 'net can be a daunting process. Broad Search Engines are fine, but not specifically focused on resources for young children, therefore surfers often do not find resources which would be useful in their care of young children." 

In March of 2006, Kinderstart filed a Class Action Suit in San Jose District Federal Court against Google. In the suit, Kinderstart indicated that starting April 2005 their PageRank status (indicated on the Google Toolbar) dropped to zero, and their referrals from Google dropped eventually to "0.01 percent" of referrals. The suit also mentions "blocked" in connection with Google, apparently referring to outright sensoring "banning" or delisting of their sight as opposed to a simple decrease in rank. Below is a listing of the nine claims:

  • Violation of Right to Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution 
  • Attempted Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
  • Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
  • Voilations of the Communications Act
  • Unfair Competition under California Business and Professional Code
  • Price Discrimination under Californai Business and Professional Code
  • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 
  • Defamation and Libel
  • Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Amid the many services Kinderstart provides to aid in healthy childcare rearing, provisional courses, and carrying Google ads there was an obvious lack of traffic and inquiries due to the loss of generation and new site accessability. Though there was a strong case, in 2007, Google won the suit in the end, with the court dismissing the above nine claims and not holding Google responsible for Kinderstart's challenges or lack of traffic. 

Related Pages




Article of the Day

Texas DUI Penalties

Understanding DUI laws and penalties within the State of Texas

Category: DUI and DWI