## Facts

- Kinderstart.com LLC (Kinderstart) operated a website that functioned as a search engine and directory for information related to young children and parenting.
- Kinderstart participated in Google, Inc.’s AdSense Program in two ways: (1) buying sponsored links on Google’s search engine, and (2) displaying ads from Google’s ad network on Kinderstart’s site in exchange for payments.
- In 2005, Kinderstart’s site traffic dropped by about 70%, and its AdSense-related revenue dropped by more than 80%.
- Kinderstart attributed the drop to Google’s use of its webpage-ranking system (commonly associated with PageRank and related search-ranking methods), which Kinderstart alleged effectively blocked or suppressed Kinderstart in Google’s search results.
- Kinderstart alleged that it continued to receive high placement on other search engines such as MSN and Yahoo, and claimed Google’s actions were the cause of the traffic and revenue loss.
- Kinderstart sued Google asserting, among other theories, that (1) Google was a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934 and violated common-carriage duties by blocking Kinderstart, (2) Google violated Kinderstart’s First Amendment free-speech rights, and (3) Google violated federal antitrust law under the Sherman Act.
- Google moved to dismiss the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether a search engine’s ranking and indexing functions make it a “common carrier” subject to duties under the Communications Act of 1934, such that alleged blocking or suppression can create liability.
2. Whether Google’s ranking or indexing decisions constitute state action so that Kinderstart can assert a First Amendment free-speech claim against Google.
3. Whether Kinderstart stated a viable Sherman Act claim based on Google’s alleged suppression of Kinderstart’s site, including sufficient allegations of market power and anticompetitive harm.

## Decision

- The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss.
- The court rejected the Communications Act/common-carrier theory because Google’s search and ranking functions are not treated as common-carrier services under the Act.
- The court dismissed the First Amendment claim because Google is a private entity, and Kinderstart did not plead facts showing state action.
- The court dismissed the Sherman Act claims because Kinderstart did not adequately plead the elements required for monopolization or attempted monopolization, including a plausible relevant market and harm to competition rather than harm only to Kinderstart.

## Legal Principles

- Common-carrier duties under the Communications Act generally apply to entities that provide transmission service to the public without individualized selection; a search engine’s ranking and indexing judgments do not fit that model.
- First Amendment free-speech constraints generally require government action; private decisions about what to index or how to rank content are not, by themselves, state action.
- Sherman Act monopolization and attempted monopolization claims require well-pleaded allegations of a properly defined relevant market, market power, exclusionary conduct, and antitrust injury (harm to competition, not merely loss of traffic or revenue by one firm).

## Conclusion

Kinderstart alleged that Google’s ranking system effectively blocked Kinderstart and caused major drops in traffic and AdSense revenue, but the court dismissed the complaint because Google was not plausibly subject to common-carrier duties under the Communications Act, Google’s search decisions were not state action triggering First Amendment liability, and the antitrust claims lacked the necessary market and competitive-harm allegations required under the Sherman Act.


Kinderstart.com LLC v. Google, Inc., 2006 WL 3246596 (2006)