SAN MATEO, CA — KinderStart.com, the “little search engine for parents of children zero to seven,” has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in its lawsuit against Google Inc, KinderStart announced in a press release issued Wednesday.Although the claims of the lawsuit do not pertain to pornography at all, KinderStart’s press release leads off with a battle cry that might lead one to conclude otherwise.
“KinderStart demands Google remove all pornography from its index for the sake of the children and parents we represent,” the company states in the Wednesday release.
In March of 2006, KinderStart filed a lawsuit against Google claiming violation of the right to free speech under both the U.S. and California Constitutions, attempted and actual monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, violations of the Communications Act, unfair competition and unfair practices under California Business and Professions Code, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and libel and “negligent interference with prospective economic advantage,” according to court documents.
In its press release, KinderStart asserts that “Google injected pornography into the case by declaring in open court that KinderStart was ‘rife with porn,’ and declared this was the reason for the ban of KinderStart” from the Google index.
The word “pornography” does not appear anywhere in Judge Fogel’s March decision, and the question of why KinderStart.com was dropped by Google’s AdSense program is not detailed with any specificity.
The alleged remarks by Google counsel concerning KinderStart.com being “rife with porn” appear to have touched a nerve, however – as well as perhaps providing them with a new claim to use in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
KinderStart spokesman, Dr. Victor Goodman, doesn’t address the substance of KinderStart’s legal claims in the release, focusing instead on the porn issue.
“KinderStart, since 2000, has provided a safe haven for parents and children from the pornography that infests the Internet and specifically the Google index,” states Goodman, adding that “Google may well be the largest repository of pornographic information and sites in the history of man.”
“Google profits in the untold millions of dollars annually by selling ads which lead to pornographic websites,” adds Goodman. “Thus Google makes huge income from pornography of all sorts. Google is in the porn business big time and on an annual basis may generate more money from links and ads to and for pornography than any other company.”
Goodman assures that, contrary to counsel for Google’s alleged claim about KinderStart being “rife with porn,” the company’s web site “has never run a pornographic ad, has never derived a penny from that trade and never will.”
“There are no pornographic links on KinderStart, and if it is ever spammed with un-seemly content, it is removed the minute that we become aware of it,” Goodman said.
While KinderStart may have found its talking point for a public relations effort against Google, the company hasn’t fared so well on the legal front of its war with the massive internet company, thus far.
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed KinderStart’s lawsuit in March, finding, among other things, that KinderStarts’ “allegations are vague and ambiguous,” and the company “makes only general claims as to the type of injury it allegedly suffered.”
In addition to dismissing the case, Judge Fogel also imposed sanctions against legal counsel for KinderStart, Gergory Yu.
Among the pleadings entered by Yu were allegations that Google accepts payment to skew its search results, and that Google alters PageRank results for political and/or religious reasons.
Judge Fogel found that Yu provided so little support for these claims (Yu interviewed but did not obtain written declarations from witnesses, and those witnesses could only provide hearsay or double hearsay evidence) that Yu should have known better than to make the allegations, at all.
“The Court concludes that the allegation that Google sells priority placement in its results should not have been made based upon the limited information identified by Yu,” Judge Fogel writes in the order granting sanctions against KinderStart. “As presented to the Court on this motion, Yu’s purported evidence is either double hearsay or hearsay speculation as to the ‘mysterious’ causes of improvement in a website’s position in Google’s search results.”
Although forging ahead with its appeal, KinderStart will do so with someone other than Yu leading the effort.
“KinderStart has dropped Global Law Group, Greg Yu, as their attorney and are retaining new counsel for the Federal Appeal,” the company states in its press release.
While the KinderStart statement does not address the company’s legal claims at all, it does include a call for “financial, vocal, moral and physical support” from “all organizations both religious and secular,” and explicitly ties that call for support to an anti-porn effort.
“Please help us fight Google in the courts and in the court of public opinion, so that we may stop Google public display of pornographic links, ads and images to our children and young adults,” states Goodman. “We need dollars to fight this company that sees no wrong in corrupting our youth… it must be stopped!”
