Why I Sued Google (and Won)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/why-i-sued-google-and-won_b_172403.html

by thinkcomp • 17 years ago

222 110 17 years ago

jcapote• 17 years ago

Great article; I had no idea that you could just go up against whoever without some crazy legal team in small claims court...

patio11• 17 years ago

Small claims court is one of the great levelers, as long as you're literate, calm, and patient. Another one is the art of writing letters on actual paper to people. Because nothing says Serious Business like the magic words Return Receipt Requested.

("I paid the Post Office five dollars extra when I mailed this so that I have admissible proof you got the letter when I sue you for ignoring its contents.")

I used the (well-founded) threat of it to resolve some difficulties after some creditors got the mistaken impression that I owed them money. One letter to get them to stop calling me, one more letter to remind them that the three calls after the first letter mean they owe me $3,000 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the meter is still running if they want to call me again.

My only regret is that I didn't have enough days off that year to march down the court and actually sue them. I think its... salutary to remind debt collection agencies that the legal system works both ways. For one, if more people did it I'd get less people thinking I owe them money because I share the same first initial, last name, and (former) zipcode as someone who might.

chris11• 17 years ago

There are a lot of stories about people suing companies in small claims court on the consumerist. A lot of companies don't want to fly someone out there to fight a thousand dollar law suit.

You can even try for damages. There's one story on there about a guy who sued Washington Mutual for $2058 over a $58 overdraft fee.

Consumerist.com stories: http://consumerist.com/tag/small%20claims%20court/

Consumerist.com How To Guide: http://consumerist.com/5100451/how-to-file-a-lawsuit

jimbokun4• 17 years ago

Is there a possible startup business that helps people go to small claims court and win? A "How to" FAQ of course is useful, but I wonder if there is way to get a business model behind it.

nostrademons2• 17 years ago

Google is pretty good at it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=small+claims+court

Heck, they've even got a business model around it: look at how many Adwords results there are!

blhack2• 17 years ago

Ummmm...it sounds like the guy totally violated google's terms of service. He was hosting ads on a domain-squatting site that had no content. The advertisers were refunded their money, and the guy's account was closed down.

As somebody that buys ads from google, I would be pretty pissed off if I found out that i was paying $1 a click for my ads to be on a parked domain...which is why they have their terms set up the way they are.

Yeah, it sounds like the appeals process sucks, and that they didn't give him a real reason, but "you are a leeching douche-bag cancer to the DNS" should be a pretty good hint.

petercooper2• 17 years ago

But they've now rolled out Adsense for Domains anyway..

Besides, surely it's the context that matters more than the content of the page? If you sell diapers for monkeys (let's say!) and your ad appears on a parked domain called monkeydiapers.com and someone clicks on it, that visitor is probably more likely to be a buyer than someone who clicks on the same ad on a comedy Web site, right?

hardik• 17 years ago

Not logged into my Adwords account since sometime but surely it would be optional to advertisers whether they want to display ads on parked domains, isn't it?

I agree with your example regarding propensity of the person being a buyer but the advertiser may not want to show his site on a parked domain for, say, branding purposes.

jayp4• 17 years ago

Looks like Googe send in a pretty useless paralegal to defend their case. Instead, if they had send you (or someone with the same arguments as you), they'd have probably won.

I think it is fairly obvious what this guy did wrong. I am just surprised Google's paralegal was not apt enough to figure this out.

tdavis• 17 years ago

The argument wasn't that he hadn't done anything wrong, it was that he was not informed what he had done wrong. He admitted to violating the ToS.

jimbokun4• 17 years ago

"Since lawyers are not permitted in small claims court, Google instead sent Stephanie Milani, a Litigation Paralegal."

rms2• 17 years ago

"the guy" submitted the story here. That means you could call him names directly rather than indirectly.

axod2• 17 years ago

And risk a lawsuit for libel?

dbul2• 17 years ago

There's nothing wrong with placing ads on a site where there is nothing but ads. What if someone was looking for something? They click the ad.

If you are buying ads space from Google I'd be more concerned about their endorsement of people allowing their widget to blend into other people's sites. I was on a website a couple months ago where the person set up Adsense so nicely that it nearly fooled me into thinking it was part of their menu. If it had been your ad, I would have unwittingly clicked and you'd owe Google and the owner of that site money.

RobGR• 17 years ago

What you say may well be true. But Google was not willing to send a representative to say that in court, or have someone type it into an email, or have one of their many automated systems put that into an email. Google is certainly capable of communicating it's side of things, yet they did not.

We should not have to construct Google's side of things for them. Google is not a retarded person facing the death penalty, unable to defend themselves. They are a multi-billion dollar company with an army of lawyers and an even bigger army of computers, and if one of those computers had displayed a message to this person explaining their side, it is likely we none of this would have happened.

Legally speaking, I think the judge had to rule this way. He didn't contradict the part of the contract that says Google can terminate any account; he just said that regardless of any account termination, Google still has to pay you money if they owe you money. Duh. The account holder presented evidence that Google owed money, and Google presented no evidence that they didn't. End of story.

I remember when Paypal seemed like the most awesome idea since the invention of money, and I remember when they waited until there was a lot of money in my account and then tried to close that account. Is Google only examining accounts to see if they fit the terms of service once they owe the account a lot of money ? It would seem uncharacteristic of them, based on what I know of the company, but it is not implausible. It's the type of shitty thing big corporate bureaucracies do.

tlrobinson2• 17 years ago

This is the same guy who claims Facebook was his idea, and tried to get Facebook's trademark revoked:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/17/greenspan_harvard_fa...

tjogin2• 17 years ago

- I have a super unique idea that nobody has thought of before: an online community where you can connect with friends, send messages and stuff. Keep a lid on it though, I don't want this never-thought-of-before idea to get out!!!

(Ideas are worthless. Execution is all that matters.)

jibiki• 17 years ago

I've never understood all the AG hate on this site. I can see how you could pity the guy, or dismiss him out of hand, but a lot of people on this site seem to hold genuine malice towards him. It's bizzare.

redrobot50504• 17 years ago

Big same. Bucknell University, where I worked as a teenager on their computer help desk, had an electronic facebook that all the techies jokingly referred to as "Stalker.net". That was 1998.

I don't know when Friendster launched, but i know people who've had profiles since 2002, so again, a "social networking site" had already been done and launched.

thinkcomp6• 17 years ago

Tom,

I don't think we've ever met, and I'm not sure what I ever did to you to merit repeated disdainful (and in this case, misleading) jabs in public forums, but I actually think 280 North is really cool and I look forward to seeing where Atlas goes.

In the meantime, my so-called claims (which are narrow and do not include the wild notion that I "invented social networking," but do involve execution and not merely an "idea") were verified by The New York Times and are publicly available for inspection, so they're really facts. The trademark dispute is in the middle of discovery right now, and ironically, there are posts on this thread that support my case--so "tried" wouldn't be the best word to use, either.

Anyway, if you want to selectively link to only articles that call me names, that's your prerogative.

Aaron

fallentimes3• 17 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html

tlrobinson2• 17 years ago

Sorry if it was misleading. I just thought it was interesting to note, given your history of legal action. As for the link, it was one of the top hits on Google for whatever I searched for at the time.

gojomo6• 17 years ago

My (very low) opinion of your claims is not based on any Register article, but your own written account of your dealings with Zuckerberg, on p. 294 and up of your book Authoritas, a section I read when you had it online. I commented with my unvarnished opinion long before your Facebook lawsuit [1].

Congratulations on your small-claims win against an unprepared Google paralegal; Google should be held to account for cryptic and arbitrary policies that retract credited balances from users' accounts.

However, in your own writings and lawsuits, you give me the impression that you are a legal gadfly rather than an entrepreneur. That can be a fine niche in life, and the press loves it, but you shouldn't expect a warm reception from aspiring entrepreneurs. Successful businesspeople often have to waste precious time and money defending against, and sometimes even paying off, legal gadflies -- even when the claims are meritless.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294

ajkirwin2• 17 years ago

Dear Aaron,

You seem to be someone who enjoys ligitating, so in an effort not to get MY ass sued, I will take a leaf out of the book of Penn Jilette.

You, sir, are a fucker, a shit-stain and a crotch weasel. You're an asshole, a jerk and I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Fuck you and the boat you sailed in on.

gdee2• 17 years ago

Is there any relevance to that tidbit in this context? ... thought not. Ad-hominem ftw.

gdee2• 17 years ago

-2? Wow. For educational purposes, could those who down voted my comment provide an explanation. I mean... the linked article was about Google and a closed account... and someone seems to remember some Facebook thing and tossed it in, presumably to discredit the subject from the start. If those are not the very definition of OT and ad-hominem, what are they? No biggie, I care little about karma, but I would like to know why?

tertius2• 17 years ago

I'm all for fairness but this guy was technically at fault and the paralegal should really have known the ins and outs better than he/she did.

Another point, I don't want to send any extra traffic to the huffpost by "liking" this article.

kailashbadu3• 17 years ago

What’s the premise of your assertion that Google had a better case than this guy did?

tertius2• 17 years ago

In terms of his wrongdoing it was an open and shut case.

In terms of their information given for what he probably knew was against their TOS, they were in the wrong. I don't deny that.

My problem comes in when he was awarded the money that was 'gained' by actions that was against their TOS.

That just doesn't make any sense.

greyman• 17 years ago

Google was also at fault, because they had to provide a reason for disabling his account. I think it was correct to sue them at least for discouraging such a practice in the future. He was their customer, it is too much to ask for at least a one sentence response from human?

trevelyan• 17 years ago

He should have put some content up on the domain before putting the advertisements up. If you have this sort of traffic, why not monetize it properly in a way that doesn't violate the terms of service?

Expecting Google to be as responsive as his own business simply because he is the boss is unrealistic. Nice to see Google giving some young legal interns experience this way. They probably save considerably over having more experienced counsel handle it.

KWD• 17 years ago

Overall, regardless of guilt or no guilt, the fault of Google is lack of notice or ability to contact them for any kind of explanation or resolution. I'm glad this guy sued and won.

This is not the first instance I've heard of this inability to resolve issues being a problem with Google, and obviously it is a chink in their armor. Now if someone wants to go after Google, customer service is definitely a weakness to highlight.

Tamerlin• 17 years ago

You nailed it on the head. The correct thing for Google to do was to tell AG why they disabled his account, not give him the runaround. They deserved to lose that suit.

Maybe if enough people with canceled accounts file suits, Google will start taking customer service a little more seriously.

coolestuk• 17 years ago

I've never used the small claims court to sue large companies. But in genuine disputes my partner and I have used it to sue small businesses where we have been aggrieved. In every single case we've won, even when the disputes were against lawyers for their fees. I know so many people who have been badly treated (e.g. landlords keeping entire deposits claiming because some minor damage happened during their tenancy). Yet none of my friends ever carry through and seek legal justice. I just don't understand their fear of the very simple small claims procedure.

shimon2• 17 years ago

I know it varies by state, but where I live (MA) the small claims limit is $2000. When you take into consideration the amount of time you're sinking into the case, and the risk that you might not win, there is only a small range of damages that are likely worth pursuing in small claims court. If you're in a line of work where you routinely sign contracts, you probably have clearer-cut cases than the average landlord-tenant situation. I think most people hardly understand most contracts they sign, and doubt they understand the range of options offered by the legal system.

So two things would help: raising the small-claims limit (I think $8k or so would make sense) and educating people about the option. Follow-up question: do shows like People's Court serve or hinder the mission of educating people about small claims court?

mhb2• 17 years ago

Getting a judgment is one thing. Getting the money from the person you sue is not always easy even if you have a judgment.

TweedHeads• 17 years ago

Propaganda attack on google.

Everybody sue them! We can't compete with them in terms of innovation and services so we better sue them into oblivion by proxy.

Nice try...

Fuca• 17 years ago

I am not saying Google its a bad company, but certainly its not the white knight everybody believes.

spoiledtechie• 17 years ago

Im starting to believe that.

blhack2• 17 years ago

are you kidding?

They're protecting the people that buy ads from them, people like me, people with no advertising budget that are just trying to get a few people to check out their stupid blog (http://www.gibsonandlily.com).

Those ads cost something like $1 a click (or more). If I found out that my tiny tiny budget was going to ads on some stupid domain parking website, I would be LIVID. Yeah, google terminated his account. They did it to protect people like me, and they are the reason the reason that people like me use them.

I'm sorry, but domain parking/squatting/tasting/leeching/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is an instant failure in my book.

fallentimes3• 17 years ago

While I agree with most of your sentiments, I think Google could have at least provided an explanation.

spc476• 17 years ago

If your ad appears on a domain parking site and no one clicks it, it doesn't cost you anything, right? Only when someone clicks the link, right? So if you are advertising your website and someone clicks an advertisement, regardless of where it appeared, that's a problem? I could see it being a problem if you paid per impression, but not for clicks, unless the clicks from a domain parking website have a lower "conversion" factor than other types of domains.

dejb• 17 years ago

This sort of thing will be the downfall of google. The lack of communication with smaller (1-10K/mth) business partners is a big problem. When you do a certain level of business with them you'd expect to be able to talk to somebody on the phone much less get a response to an email. Communication is worth at least 10c CPM.

nostrademons2• 17 years ago

How much more money could he have made had he put all the time he spent complaining about Google, suing them, and then writing about it into improving his product? Or coming up with something that's at least not totally lame?

At decent programmer salaries, $761 is like 2 days of work. Probably more if you're self employed and have a decent business. There's a reason why startups do their best not to get involved in lawsuits...

kailashbadu3• 17 years ago

You horribly misread the article if you think he did this to get his $761 back.

dbul2• 17 years ago

Agreed. You don't take Google to small claims court to win $761, you take them to small claims court and win so that you can write about it in the Huffington Post and have a bunch of nerds react to it.

gsmaverick• 17 years ago

The Google Adsense TOS clearly states they can terminate accounts for any reason. And yes that includes having brown hair. You have no right to any of the money. They DON'T owe you ANYTHING! I don't understand why people can't realize this!

lutorm2• 17 years ago

You can't disable constitutional rights by TOS.

mhb2• 17 years ago

And that will matter when Google becomes part of the US government.

iamelgringo• 17 years ago

As much as I like Google, their customer service sucks when you're trying to get in touch with someone. What other customer facing company could get away with something like that? If it was a bank, I'd be speaking to customer service managers. If it was a store, I'd be able to speak with a manager and try to get the issue resolved, or at least be told why my account was canceled.

Whether or not he violated his terms of service or not, doesn't mean that they had a right to swallow his $700.

sutro• 17 years ago

Hey thinkcomp, are you going to sue E*Trade too?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=504950

shimi• 17 years ago

I don't care who the guy is. A contract termination needs to come with a reason, a termination without reason is bullying. 700$ is enough money to make an effort and go to court to settle the sidpute.

What I find it hard to believe is that Google couldn't come up with a reason, I just can't believe they are so incompetent!! Something just doesn't add up...

frig• 17 years ago

There's a problem with being litigious: it closes doors for you, and you'll probably never even know what doors they were...if someone does their due diligence, sees you're litigious, and decides not to contact you, it's quite unlikely they'll contact you to let you know they decided not to contact you.

kragen7• 17 years ago

Can someone explain to me how domain squatters add more value to the world than beggars? (Leaving aside that beggars usually have an excuse for not being able to find productive work.)

jfornear• 17 years ago

I had my Google AdSense account terminated a few years ago, too. I emailed Google asking why and never heard anything back. I remember being frustrated about it since I wasn't doing anything that would have been considered sketchy. I should've sued and become internet famous... ugh.

Why I Sued Google (and Won)

Related Stories