Editing Search engine optimization (section)

== Legal precedents ==
On October 17, 2002, SearchKing filed suit in the [[United States district court|United States District Court]], Western District of Oklahoma, against the search engine Google. SearchKing's claim was that Google's tactics to prevent spamdexing constituted a [[tortious interference]] with contractual relations. <!-- This may be compared to lawsuits that email spammers have filed against spam-fighters, as in various cases against MAPS and other [[DNSBL]]s. --> On May 27, 2003, the court granted Google's motion to dismiss the complaint because SearchKing "failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/618281/Order-(Granting-Googles-Motion-to-Dismiss-Search-Kings-Complaint)|format=PDF|publisher=docstoc.com|title=Search King, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc., CIV-02-1457-M|date=May 27, 2003|access-date=May 23, 2008|archive-date=May 27, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527012138/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/618281/Order-(Granting-Googles-Motion-to-Dismiss-Search-Kings-Complaint)|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-1011740.html|title=Judge dismisses suit against Google|website=[[CNET]]|author=Stefanie Olsen|access-date=May 10, 2007|date=May 30, 2003|archive-date=December 1, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101201180530/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-1011740.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 2006, KinderStart filed a lawsuit against Google over search engine rankings. KinderStart's website was removed from Google's index prior to the lawsuit, and the amount of traffic to the site dropped by 70%. On March 16, 2007, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] ([[San Jose, California|San Jose]] Division) dismissed KinderStart's complaint without leave to amend and partially granted Google's motion for [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure#Title III .E2.80.93 Pleadings and Motions|Rule 11]] sanctions against KinderStart's attorney, requiring him to pay part of Google's legal expenses.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=June 23, 2008|archive-date=May 11, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511162049/http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/03/kinderstart_v_g_2.htm|publisher=blog.ericgoldman.org|title=Technology & Marketing Law Blog: KinderStart v. Google Dismissed—With Sanctions Against KinderStart's Counsel|date=March 20, 2007 |url=http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/03/kinderstart_v_g_2.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/03/google_sued_ove.htm
|title=Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Google Sued Over Rankings—KinderStart.com v. Google
|publisher=blog.ericgoldman.org
|access-date=June 23, 2008
|archive-date=June 22, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080622152019/http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/03/google_sued_ove.htm
|url-status=live
}}</ref>