Kinderstart.com LLC v. Google, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2006 WL 3246596 (2006)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Kinderstart.com LLC (Kinderstart) (plaintiff) operated a website that was essentially a search engine for information on various subjects related to young children. Kinderstart enrolled in the AdSense Program established by Google, Inc. (defendant), under which Kinderstart paid for sponsored links in Google’s search engine. In addition, Kinderstart placed advertisements from Google’s network on its website in exchange for payments. In 2005, Kinderstart’s website views dropped by approximately 70 percent. In addition, Kinderstart’s advertising revenues through Google’s AdSense Program dropped by over 80 percent. Kinderstart sued Google, alleging that Google was a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934 (the act) and had effectively blocked Kinderstart’s website using its webpage-ranking system, in violation of its common-carriage duties. Kinderstart claimed for comparison purposes that it still maintained high rankings on other search engines like MSN and Yahoo. Kinderstart also claimed that Google had violated Kinderstart’s free-speech rights under the First Amendment. Finally, Kinderstart alleged that Google had violated antitrust principles under the Sherman Act. Google filed a motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fogel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.