The Court concluded in its
July 13th Order that KinderStart had failed to allege facts sufficient to
support each of the four elements of an attempted monopolisation claim ... The Court also noted that KinderStart had not sufficiently described
the markets relevant to its claim. The SAC (second amended complaint) suffers
from essentially the same defects."
"The Court dismissed the defamation and libel claim in the FAC (first amended
complaint) on the basis that KinderStart had failed to explain how Google caused
injury to it by a provably false statement about the output of Google’s
algorithm regarding KinderStart.com, as distinguished from an unfavorable
opinion about KinderStart.com’s importance ... "KinderStart's allegations are vague and ambiguous, and KinderStart makes only general claims
as to the type of injury it allegedly suffered … KinderStart still has failed to
identify a provably false statement."
The judge also imposed
yet-to-be-determined sanctions on KinderStart's lawyer Gregory Yu for making
unsupported allegations against Google.
KinderStart.com LLC v. Google,
Inc., C 06-2057 JF (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2007)
Opinion dismissing the lawsuit /
Opinion granting sanctions
March 21, 2007: Williams,
Judge boots out Google delisting suit, The Register:
"A US federal judge has thrown out a defamation suit against Google, brought
after the advertising firm's PageRank search engine relegated parenting
links site KinderStart.com."
March 20, 2007, Goldman,
KinderStart v. Google Dismissed--With Sanctions Against KinderStart's
Counsel, Technology & Marketing Law Blog