Google Enjoined in Small Claims Suit
This is probably an old story, but I ran across it while doing a Google search. At the bottom of my Google search, I saw this line:
“ In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.”
The link takes you to this URL:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=937
Where Chilling Effects posts a letter to Google saying this:
Re: Transfer and removal of Blog
I have attached the court order which provides for the following:The removal of all of the information about myself, and my companies from your search results.
The transfer of the blog known as MarkRoyAnderson, over to me and the immediate removal of that blog from your search engines. The reason that the blogname is being transferred to me, is so that it can not he used again by anyone but me.
I have already set up an account with the blogspot.com. It is under the name [private]. With my email address “[private]”
Let me know how we can get this coordinated so that this can get done once and for all. This court order is to be effective immediately.
Sincerely
Mark Anderson [private]
Email: “[private]@aol.com”
Looks like a fellow named Joe Gallant took it upon himself to research a venture capital firm named “Summit Ventures.” He found out that the owner, Mark Anderson, may have been sentenced for securities-based mail fraud. (You can read Joe Gallant’s blog, archived at the Internet Archive.)
The small claims court then ordered Joe Gallant to transfer ownership of markroyanderson.blogspot.com to Mark Anderson, remove the domain name, and then enjoined Google from displaying search results referencing: “MARY ROY ANDERSON, CAMDEN HOLDINGS, SUMMITT VENTURES AND SUMMITT OIL AND GAS INC.”
Looks like from the SEC filings that Mr. Anderson and his various companies were trying to enter into investment deals and “misrepresenting” and “non-performing.” See this 8-K filing.
Interesting that a California small claims court can wield such power over terms and searched on the Internet. It effectively removes from the Internet–by removing from Google search results–public information such as SEC filings, and not just Gallant’s blog-with-a-grudge.
Regarding the SEC filings: how else would you find this information? I suppose you could go straight to the SEC web site. I also wonder if they’re on Yahoo! or MSN or other search engines. If someone can monopolize access to certain information by having them removed from search engines through the small claims court… Where are we?
August 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
That is a great question. a small claims court? Hard to believe. How many leaps of appeals does a defendant have to make to get to a high court which will make sense of this? This has all the trappings of a nuisance suit–that worked.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:15 am
does anyone knows if there is any other information about this subject in other languages?
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
do you know any information about this in english?
October 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Thanks for publishing this explanation. Like you, I became interested in this topic after running a Google search and seeing the notice about one them being removed for legal reasons. After digging into this a little bit, I was shocked to see that a small claims court ruling could have such an effect under the circumstances.
I still don’t fully understand the situation well enough to comment authoritatively, but simply based on what I’ve learned so far, this situation appears to be one where a well-connected individual brought legal resources to bear in order to suppress the ability for people to discover his participation in unsavory business dealings. All US citizens who believe in the US Constitution and using the internet to discover truth should be concerned by what has happened in this case.