2.28.07 Judge: Google is a media company, legally speaking
By Richard Koman - February 28, 2007
A federal judge has dismissed a case against Google that challenged the search engine's right to refuse advertising. In his ruling (PDF), the judge handed Google, Yahoo and Microsoft a big fat juicy win, saying that search engines can refuse advertising for any reason - and they don't have to say why.
The plaintiff, Christopher Langdon, was suing Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Time Warner and AOL for refusal to run his ads. The complaint focused mainly on Google and its refusal to specify the reason for the rejection.
In essence, the judge answered the topic that's been tearing up these pages this week: Is Google a media company? Simply, yes. Search engines are constitutionally similar to newspapers, the decision says and they have the same limited First Amendment rights as newspapers to accept or reject advertising.
Eric Goldman has an excellent review of the decision. He highlights the main points.
- Search engines have a First Amendment right to reject ads as part of their protected right to speak or not (see Miami Herald v. Tornillo). This opinion is consistent with the uncited Search King ruling, although that case framed Google's Page Rank as protected opinion.
- Search engine decisions to reject ads is protected by [the Communications Decency Act] as a legitimate decision to filter "otherwise objectionable" content. The court concludes that "Section 230 provides Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft immunity for their editorial decisions regarding screening and deletion from their network." I'm expecting the KinderStart judge to protect Google's ranking choices under 230(c)(2) as well. (In case you're wondering, we're still waiting for the KinderStart ruling that was promised by the end of 2006.)
- Search engines aren't state actors and are not bound by the First Amendment, so they do not deprive advertisers (such as Langdon) of First Amendment rights by rejecting their advertising. This opinion is consistent with at least a dozen other cases holding that private IAPs and websites aren't state actors.
In finding for Google, the court said that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but the right not to speak and cited three newspaper cases that protect a publisher's right to refuse advertising. Indeed, search engines are in an even stronger position than publications, because while newspapers face liability claims for what they publish (such as libel claims), "online service providers" to not. That's because of the Communications Decency Act, which explicitly "forbids the imposition of publisher liability on a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions." (Ben Ezra, Weinstein Inc. v AOL, 206 F.3d. 980.)
In the future, search engines need not worry about giving explanations to every advertiser it rejects. The ruling makes clear they can now reject without explanation.
This will save Google time and frustration--they can just invoke that standard sign over the cash register: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," says Dana Todd, president of the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization and co-founder of SiteLab, a search engine marketing agency.
So the bottom line, says media and tech attorney Jon Hart, according to Forbes:
Next time, the defendant will pull up a copy of this opinion. Google is not the public square, it is a media company."
« 2.28.07 GOOG leads Net stock recovery | Main | To be or not to be a media company? There is a lot at stake... »
Posted to NewsWatch
February 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comment | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Silicon Valley Goes To Paris... Le Web '09
- Turkey's Search Engine And The Backlash Against The Internet's 'Wal-Marts'
- A Saturday Post: Media In Crisis: I'm Thankful For Being Here Right Now...
- Guest Post: Social Media Marketing is Swiss Cheese
- A Single Search Index Would Speed Up The Entire Internet - A Zero Carbon Speed Boost
- The Dark Matter Of Internet Commerce - A Towering Pile of Scams - $1.4Bn And Counting...
- Groovy: Real-Time Data Could Aid Media Companies
- Tech Awards For Humanity: "Cash Prizes" Galore And Al Gore's Meaningless Speech . . . And Amazing Laureates!
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
Comments (2)
Interesting...I wonder if this puts GOOG et al, a step closer to possible liability over what they publish?
The Communications Decency Act protects them as service providers, but they are making editorial decisions as to what advertising they will publish, therefore they are making an editorial decision as to the overall content they publish.
If GOOG is defined as a media company and not a communications company, and it is not an ISP, could it lose the protection of the Communications Decency Act, and be responsible for what it publishes?
Posted: February 28, 2007 12:48 PM
That's interesting. This dismissal decision actually has it both ways. Google is given the free speech protections of a newspaper and the court cites Miami Herald (newspapers can't be required to print candidate responses to editorials), Daily Nebraskan (decision not to print gay ads protected as free speech), Associates & Aldrich Co (newspaper can't b e compelled to print ad as is; right to edit).
At the same time, Google is an online service provider under CDA. So they are protected from the liability that newspapers have for the editorial decisions they make.
That's a sweet spot to be in. I think the thing to realize is that the First Amendment right not to speak is not a press freedom but a commercial freedom. The cases are newspaper cases because newspapers are traditional ad publishers. As an ad-running business, GOOG has the right not to run ads.
But they don't exercise any other editorial discretion, so they are very much an online provider. In fact, since all they do is aggregate others' content, they really have no editorial liability.
You could argue they should have a responsibiilty for the content they carry (ie Google News), but that's where CDA steps in to say: No liability.
Posted: February 28, 2007 3:51 PM